Appendix — Hodder v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Supreme Court, U.% ”

FILED

MAY 4 1979

IN THE MICHABL RODAK, JR., CLERR

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1978

No. 78-1652

MARTIN HAROLD HODDER, ROWENA E. ROBERTS,

KEVIN DONOVAN, LORRETTA DONOVAN,

E. GARDNER PRIME, VALERIE PRIME,

NATHANIEL ERIC HODDER,

Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Repondents,

and

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,

Intervenor.

SEPARATE APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR A

WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

MARTIN H. HODDER

1131 N.E. 86th Street

Miami, Florida 33138

(30S) 751-8706

TERENCE J. ANDERSON

University of Miami

School of Law

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(305) 284-2253 or 2971

Attorneys for Petitioners

Se ST IEE a ET a TS ET)

THE CASILLAS PRESS. INC.-1717 K Street N W.—Weshington, 0. C.-223-1220

ee

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Administrative Decisions

In the Matter of

Florida Power and Light Company

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2)

(Opinions and Orders of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Appeal Board (ALAB) and Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board (LPB))

PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER NO. 3,

Ee PG De SA FROPOE Coto ada et ba venvcasapece

PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION — ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SITE SUITABILITY, LPB 75-5, 1 NRC 101 (1975). ...

SUPPLEMENT TO BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL

DECISION, LPB 75-25, 1 NRC 463 (1975). ........000085

DECISION, ALAB-335, 3 NRC 830 (1976) .........00 00 0e

INITIAL DECISION, LPB 77-27, SNRC 1038 (1977)........

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-415,

Ds RITMEOTTE Nv heed na Cece eis haniedecas ede s

DECISION, ALAB-435, 6 NRC 541 (1977)... 6... ee eee ee

Miscellaneous

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Consideration of

Accidents in Implementation of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (AEC 1971),

36 Fed. Reg. 22851 (December 11,1971) ............005.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

Public Law 91-190 Approved January 1,1970 ............

lb

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LBP-74-55

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

John B. Farmakides, Chairman

David L. Hetrick, Member

Frank F. Hooper, Member

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-389

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY July 12, 1974

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit 2)

PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER #3

A prehearing conference was held in the above-captioned matter on June 20,

1974, pursuant to properly issued notice for- same. The parties were all

represented and participated in the following actions:

(a) Preparation of a firm schedule leading to the evidentiary hearing.

(b) Discussion and refinement of issues in controversy.

(c) Submission of joint motion of party Intervenor and AEC Regulatory

Staff as to issues in controversy in lieu of earlier admitted contentions.

(d) Status of Mrs. Betty Lou Wells in this proceeding.

As a result of all the comments, arguments, and pleadings filed, and after careful

review of the joint motion filed by the AEC Regulatory Staff (Staff) and the

Invervenor (hereafter June 25 Motion), Applicant’s response thereto, and the

“good cause” statements of Mr. Hodder, the Board rules as follows:

1, Except where otherwise indicated, all contentions stated in Appendix A,

attached hereto, are hereby admitted as matters in controversy in lieu of and in

full substitution of all and any prior contentions appearing in Intervenor’s

pleadings, or the Board’s Memorandum and Order.of January 24, 1974. The

Board carefully reviewed the June 25 Motion and has generally adopted it as a

more precise and useful formulation of issues flowing from the petition to

intervene, and the stipulation of the parties dated December4, 1973, as

' Stipulation and Joint Motion, dated June 25, 1974, between party Intervenors and

party AEC Regulatory Staff.

2b

contained in the Board’s Memorandum and Order dated January 24, 1974. Any

contention proposed in said June 25 Motion and not expressly accepted, as

stated by the parties, or as modified by the Board, and admitted as a matter in

controversy in said Appendix A hereto, is expressly denied. Accordingly,

whatever additional discovery is needed in light of the restated matters in

controversy thus admitted herein may commence immediately. In view of said

restated matters in controversy, it is expected that, following the scheduled

period for additional discovery, the parties should be better able to, and will

make full use of section 2.749 of the Rules of Practice and file Motions for

Summary Disposition where appropriate.

2. The letter of Mrs. Betty Lou Wells dated December 9, 1973, relating to

this proceeding has not been formally treated at an earlier date. [t appeared to

be in the nature of a request for limited appearance and if it is so intended, the

Board hereby grants same and invites Mrs. Wells to express her views at the first

day of the evidentiary session now scheduled for October 15, 197+, at a place to

be designated later by the Board near the site of the proposed facility. If on the

other hand, it is intended to constitute a petition to intervene, then the Board

hereby expressly denies same because: (a) it completely fails to set out an

interest, contentions and basis therefor, as required by section 2.714 of the AEC

Rules of Practice; (b) and it was filed untimely—approximately two months

later than the 30-day time limit provided by the Notice of Hearing dated

September 13, 1973, without a showing of good cause.

3. The following schedule for all remaining procedural dates in this hearing

is hereby established:

Final Date For

(1) August 18, 1974 (1) All discovery requests

(2) August 30, 1974 (2) Responses to all discovery requests

(3) Motions for summary disposition, if any

(4) Responses to motions for summary

disposition, if any

(3) September 10, 1974

(4) September 17, 1974

(S) o/a September 25, 1974 (5) Ruling on motions (by telephone

to be confirmed by written

order)

(6) October 2, 1974 (6) Filing all written testimony

(7) October 8, 1974 (7) Final prehearing conference

(8) October 15, 1974 (8) Evidentiary hearing commences

The Board notes that while the Applicant had initially requested September 30

as the commencement of the evidentiary hearing, and the Intervenor had

requested October 30, (the AEC Regulatory Staff had no objection to either

date), the Board decided on October 15 as a reasonable compromise for the

3b

reasons stated at the conference. Accordingly, the Board considers the above

schedule firm. Any request for change or extension of time must be justified by .

substantial showing of good cause.

It isso ORDERED.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND

LICENSING BOARD

John B. Farmakides, Chairman

Issued at Bethesda, Maryland,

this 12th day of July 1974

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant

Docket No. 50-389

Prehearing Conference Order #3

APPENDIX A

July 12, 1974

The following contentions are hereby admitted as matters in controversy in

this proceeding:

Contention 1.1

Whether the St. Lucie Unit 2, alone, or in combination with other plants on

the site will discharge radioactive effluents to air and water which are not “‘as

low as practicable” as to:

(a) gaseous radwaste from condenser air ejectors; mechanical vacuum pump;

radwaste, reactor and turbine building vents; and containment purge.

(b) liquid radwaste returned to the condensate system and packaged for

offsite shipment or discharged from the plant in the circulating water system.

Contention 1.2

Whether even if radioactive effluents froi St. Lucie Unit 2, alone, or in

combination with other plants on the site, comply with the Commission’s “‘as

low as practicable” criteria, the cost-benefit balance is unfavorable for the

facility because the following costs are still too great:

(a) the genetic effect on the population and plant employees generally;

(b) the genetic effect on human fetuses and breast-fed infants;

4b

(c) the genetic effect through milk pathway to consumers of milk produced

within a 50-mile radius of facility;

(d) the genetic effect through the food pathway including leafy vegetables.

Contention 1.2.1

Whether even if radioactive effluents from St. Lucie Unit 2, alone, or in

combination with other plants on the site, comply with the Commission's “as

low as practicable”’ criteria, the cost-benefit balance is unfavorable for said

Unit 2 because such effluents will produce somatic damage to persons

particularly susceptible to carcinoma.

Note: The Board has formulated and admitted this contention in view of

Contention 1.2 above and after consideration of comments in joint motion

supplied by Staff and Intervenor on Contention |.2 and all subsequent pleadings

thereto.

Contention 1.3

Whether sufficient need for power will exist to justify the present

construction of the facility, particularly whether:

(a) the projected reserve margin without the facility would be adequate;

(b) conservation measures by consumers due to changes in the rate structure

designed to reduce the demand for electricity including peak pricing and higher

overall prices will eliminate or postpone the need for the facility;

(c) whether or not there shall occur in the future a slowed rate of economic

growth in Florida, which would reduce the need for power;

(d) whether there are power pools for Applicant to join; and if so by joining

such pools, whether its reserve needs would be diminished sufficiently to

eliminate the need for the facility;

(e) conservation of electricity by Applicant’s customers is due to increased

rates presently occurring.

Contention 1.4

The Staff's Final Environmental Statement and NEPA cost-benefit analysis

has not sufficiently considered whether the use of cooling water from the Indian

River, through the emergency cooling water canal, will have adverse effects on

the Indian River environment, which, as to emergency water should have been

considered, and 1s to water used in testing, was not considered sufficiently in the

FES.

Note: This contention may reasonably be considered to flow from Board's

January 24 Order, Contentions 3 and 16. The Board has admitted it by resolving

doubt in favor of Intervenor and in view of the essence of the allegation which

goes to the adequacy of the Staff's Final Environmental Statement. The Board

believes that such a challenge to the FES should be heard and decided on the

record.

5b

Contention 1.5

Whether the use of cooling water for normal operation will have adverse

effects on the marine environment not considered sufficiently in the Final

Environmental Statement, including:

(a) diversion or creation of currents resulting in increased beach erosion;

(b) diversion or creation of currents which can affect filter feeding organisms

by removing their food sources;

(c) entrainment injury of marine organisms, fish, and skin divers;

(d) increased water temperatures which may increase death or injury to

marine organisms or affect their breeding.

Contention 1.6

Whether the Staffs Final Environmental Statement has sufficiently consid-

ered alternatives to the proposed action including:

(a) alternative fossil generating methods in that fuel costs and more

economical fuel delivery systems have not been explored;

(b) alternative sites especially sparsely populated areas such as Southwest

Florida ;

(c) alternative ultimate heat sink methods such as auxiliary ocean intake or

wet or dry cooling towers using salt or fresh water or treated sewage effluent.

Note: This issue may reasonably be considered to flow from Board’s

January 24 Order, Contentions 3 and 11. The Board has admitted it by resolving

doubt in favor of Intervenor and in view of the essence of the allegation which

goes to the adequacy of the Staff's Final Environmental Statement. The Board

believes that such a challenge to the FES should be heard and decided on the

record.

Contention 1.7

Whether the Applicant has adequately provided protection against the

occurrence of radioactive releases resulting from a fuel handling accident at the

site or in fuel transportation to and from the site.

Contention 2.1

Whether the proposed site meets the requirement of 10 CFR Part 100 as to

metecrological conditions including:

(a) whether the Staff has adequately considered meteorological considera-

tions peculiar tc the site, particularly as to the frequency and strength of:

(1) hurricanes occurring below the thirty-fifth parallel;

(2) hurricane storm surges;

(3) northeaster storm surges;

6b

(b) whether hurricanes pose such a severe threat to the safe operation, due to

their accompanying land erosion, high winds and storm surges, and their

resultant effect on the site, its equipment, buildings and the intake water canal

and emergency cooling canal and means of ingress and egress, that the site is

unsuitable.

(c) whether the diesel generators would start at the height of a hurricane

including whether waveborne or airborne water entering the air intakes, designed

building openings, and storm-created building openings could prevent operation;

(d) whether Applicant and Staff should have considered the maximum

possible hurricane such as Camille-type storm (225-mile an hour winds and more

than a 16-foot surge) rather than the maximum probable hurricane as a design

basis for the facility.

(e) whether prevailing winds from the proposed site blow toward the

populous area of Ft. Pierce, only 8 miles away, and whether a stabilizing effect

exerted by the Indian River on the radioactive gas plume from the accident

would limit the dispersion of such plume so as to render the proposed site

unsuitable.

Contention 2.2

Whether the proposed site meets ©» requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 as to

population density and use characteristics of the site environs, including:

(a) whether Applicant and Staff have adequately considered present popula-

tion and future demographic change near the site, particularly:

(1) whether increased population of Hutchinson Island resulting from

high-rise, high-density condominiums and resort hotel development with

larger tenant capacities;

(2) whether within the low-population zone (LPZ), real estate develop-

ments and subdivisions on the mainland three to five miles away from the

proposed site which are currently more populous than Staff and Applicant

estimate and whether this will result in the very high population density

within the next decade far in excess of Applicant population projections in

the Environmental Report (ER) and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report

(PSAR);

(3) in nearby cities of Stuart, Jensen Beach, White City, and Fort Pierce

within 10 miles of the proposed site;

(b) whether Applicant's presentation in the PSAR, Figure 2.1-2, an aerial

photograph of Hutchinson Island, fails to include the entire area from five to

ten miles from the proposed site and the devclopment occurring there, and

whether such information is necessary to accurately assess site suitabulity;

7b

(c) whether the demographic studies performed for Applicant by First

Research Corporation of Miami are inaccurate and misleading and underestimate

the high population in the site environs including the LPZ;

(d) whether there is a reasonable probability that appropriate measures could

be taken in the event of an accident to protect residents including evacuation of

LPZ personnel, particularly whether the. single, two-lane highway, AlA, on

Hutchinson Island:

(1) is sufficient for evacuation and access for emergency equipment;

(2) could be separated by a storm or accident at the site since the road

bisects the site which would result in division and splitting up of emergency

evaucation and safety efforts;

(3) would cause highway AIA traffic to bottleneck at the single bridge at

each end of the island, diminishing the possibility of escape from an island in

an emergency;

(e) whether Applicant's ability to control activities and traffic on and near

the site within the exclusion area is adequate, particularly;

(1) whether Applicant specifically has no control over traffic on highway

A1A which bisects the plant site;

(2) whether Applicant has voluntarily retinquished control over the

beach areas within the site boundary since they have no control in that area;

(3) whether Applicant’s plans for controlling personnel in beach and

highway areas are inadequate.

Contention 2.3

Whether the proposed site meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 as to

seismc considerations, particularly whether Applicant’s seismic studies are

incomplete, inaccurate, inadequate, including:

(a) insufficient evidence of lack of faults:

(b) no information on ten-foot plus offsets;

(c) bore holes too far apart to detect faults:

(d) bore holes choice improper, i.e., no history submitted on boze hole

selection;

(e) failure to complete into St. Lucie County the study of the postulated

Martin County fault;

(f) an attempt to adequately chronicle earthquake history for three hundred

years;

(g) too few blow count samples in the area 70-feet to 85-feet depth strata

and whether this area shows liquefaction potential;

(h) failure to consider dynamic interaction of units | and 2;

(i) emergency cooling canal slide blockage potential:

(j) whether a fault exists five miles from the site and whether the fault is a

capable fault.

8b

Contention 3.1

Whether the Appiicant’s plans for the use of water from the Indian River as a

backup source of emergency cooling water provide for an adequate ultimate heat

sink during periods of extremely low tides.

Contention 3.2

Whether Applicant’s emergency plan complies with Appendix E to 1|OCFR

Part 50 in that neither Applicant nor any state agency has adequately addressed

the problem of adequate evacuation of the LPZ.

Contention 3.3

Whether Applicant’s proposed emergency core cooling system, or ECCS

meets the requirements of AEC regulations.

Contention 3.4

Whether the Applicant in its proposed design and construction of St. Lucie

Plant No. 2 has considered and adequately provided for any possible adverse

effects of fuel densification.

Note: With respect to the additional issues which party Intervenor seeks to

raise as set forth on pages 11 and 12 of the Stipulation and Joint Motion, the

Board rules as follows:

1. As to statement on Contention 1.1 (page 11, Joint Motion) the Board

agrees with the AEC Regulatory Staff position that such an issue is currently

within rulemaking and not proper subject matter for this proceeding.

2. As to statement on Contention 1.2 (page 11, Joint Motion) Board has

defined it as Contention |.2.1, above, and admits same as matter in controversy.

3. As to statement on Contention 1.3 (page 11, Joint Motion) Board rules

that Contention 1.3 as admitted contains the contention of party Intervenor as

stated in Board’s January 24 Order. Intervenor has failed to show sufficient good

cause to justify expanding his earlier contention.

4. As to statement on Contention 1.4 (page 12, Joint Motion) Board has

admitted said contention as modified, as a matter in controversy.

5. As to statement on Contention 1.5 (page 12, Joint Motion) Board has

admitted same as a matter in controversy.

6. As to statement on Contention 1.6 (page 12, Joint Motion) Board rules,

that, except as set forth in Contention 1.6 on page 4 of Joint Motion, said

proposed issue does not flow from any contentions admitted and set forth in the

Board’s January 24 Order. Intervenor has failed to show good cause why it

should now be admitted. As to the “waste storage-fuel cycle” subissue, Board

has previously denied same.

7. As to statement on Contention 1.7 (page 12, Joint Motion) Board agrees

9b

that there has been no showing of a reasonable possibility of class 9 accident at

St. Lucie and therefore an issue relating to a class 9 accident is denied.

8. As to statement on Contention 2.2 (page 12, Joint Motion) Board finds

this proposed issue to be new and finds further that party Intervenor has failed

to show substantial good cause for adding this issue as a new matter in

controversy. .

This appendix is incorporated in and made a part of Prehearing Conference

Order #3, Docket No. 50-389, issued by this Board on July 12, 1974.

10b °

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LRP 75-5

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

John B. Farmakides, Chairman

David L. Hetrick, Member

Frank F. Hooper, Member

in the Matter of Docket No. 50-389

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY February 28,1975

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant

Unit No. 2)

APPEARANCES

Norman A.Coll, Esq.. and Matthew M. Childs, Esq.,

McCarthy, Steel, Hector and Davis, accompanied by Harold

F. Reis, Esq., Jack R.Newman, Esq., and Anthony

Gambardella, ['sq.. Newman, Reis, and Axelrad on behall

of Applicant.

Martin H. Hodder, Fsq., on behalf of the Intervenors.

Richard Boone, Esq., on behalf of the Regulatory Staff,

Federal Power Commission.

Perry B. Seiffert, Esq., James Tourtellotte, Esq., Gregory

Fess, Esq., Daniel Swanson, Esq.. and A. Gray Staples, Esq..

on behalf of the Regulatory Staff.

Upon application for construction permit for St. Lucie Unit 2, Licensing

Board issues a partial initial decision#on environmental and site suitability

aspects of the facility and makes factual determinations requisite for the

issuance of an LWA, including imposition of certain conditions.

L1b

LWA: SITE REDRESSIBILITY

An applicant may be required to redress the site after LWA activities in the

event a construction permit is subsequently denied. The extent to which such

LWA activities can be redressed must be factored into the cost-benefit balance to

be performed by the Board.

PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION —

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SITE SUITABILITY

1. Preliminary and Background

1. By application filed on May 14, 1973, the Florida Power and Light

Company (Applicant) moved for a construction permit authorizing the

construction of the proposed St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2 facility.

The proposed plant is a nuclear pressurized water reactor with a gross electric

power output of approximately 850 MW and a thermal power rating of 2560

MW. The Unit is to be constructed on Hutchinson Island, approximately midway

between the cities of Fort Pierce and Stuart, Florida, and will be adjacent to

St. Lucie Unit No.1, a nuclear plant of similar design and power output

currently being constructed on the same site pursuant to Construction Permit

CPPR-74 (Docket No. 50-335).'

2.On September 21, 1973, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

(Commission) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Hearing on

Application for Construction Permit.? The Notice, inter alia: (1) set forth the

requirements to be met in considering the application pursuant to the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended;> (2) established issues pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA);* (3) provided that persons

wishing to intervene in the proceeding could file petitions for leave to intervene

by October 23, 1973; and, (4) designated this Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board (Board) for this proceeding.

3. Pursuant to said notice, on October 23, 1973, a Petition for Leave to

Intervene was filed by Martin Harold Hodder, pro se, and as Attorney for

Rowena E. Roberts, KevinM. Donovan, Loretta Donovan, E. Gardner Prime,

‘Final Environmental Statement (Staff Exhibit S-1, p. 1-1).

738 Fed. Reg. 26482.

*42 U.S.C. 2011, et. seq.

*42 U.S.C. 4321, et. seq.

12b

Valerie Prime, and Nathaniel Eric Hedder (Intervenors). A letter dated

December 9, 1973, and filed by Mrs. B. L. Wells was denied as a petition to

intervene for failure to conform to requirements of § 2.714 of the Rules and for

untimely filing. Mrs. Wells, however, was granted permission to make a limited

appearance and did so at the evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to a “Notice of

Special Prehearing Conference”, issued on November 16, 1973,° this Board held

a prehearing conference in Miami, Florida, on December 4, 1973. By its

“Prehearing Conference Order” of January 24, 1974, the Board admitted certain

contentions of Intervenors as issues in controversy in this proceeding and

ordered commencement of discovery. All contentions not admitted were denied.

Accordingly, this proceeding is a contested proceeding as defined in 10 CFR

§ 2.4(n). | "

4. On June 20, 1974, the Board issued ‘Prehearing Conference Order No. 3

setting forth in Appendix A thereof the issues admitted as matters in

controversy in this proceeding.® The matters in controversy thus admitted were

further refined through prehearing >rocedures and procedural rulings to the

effect that Contention 2.2 was amended to include subissues relating to: (a)

reactor distance to nearest population center; (b) definition of LPZ; and (c)

definition of exclusion area. Contention 1.2(c) was amended to change the word

“genetic” to “somatic”.’ |

5. By separate motions filed on September 10, 1974, the Applicant and AEC

Regulatory Staff moved for summary disposition under § 2.749 as to specific

contentions of the Intervenor. The Board ruled thereto in an Order on Motions

for Summary Disposition dated: September 25, 1974. Inter alia, it noted that

Applicant’s motion as to Contentions 1.5, 2.1(e), and 3.18 were not opposed by

intervenor, concluded that there was no material fact in dispute thereto and

accordingly granted the motions for summary disposition and dismissed said

contentions. The Board also dismissed Contentions 1.6(a)(b), 1.7, 2.1(a)(c)(d),

and 2.2(e)1)(2) after finding that no genuine issue of material fact was raised

thereby. After allowing Intervenor further time to respond to Applicant’s

Motions for Summary Disposition on Contentions 1.4 and 2.2(e)(3), the Board

ruled that no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to these

contentions, and accordingly dismissed them.” The Board denied nna for

Summary Disposition as to Contentions 1.2.1, 1.6(c), 2.1(b), and 2.3(i).

°38 Fed. Reg. 29483. | A

*The matters in controversy admitted are reproduced as Appendix A to this Initial

Decision. (Appendix A is omitted from this publication.)

’Tr. 161, 446, 683.

*See Appendix A (omitted from this publication).

*Tr. 157 (as corrected), 160.

'°Thus the final list of contentions for hearing were: 1.1(a)(b); 1.2(a)4d); 1.2.1;

1.3(a)-(e); 1.6(c); 2.1(b); 2.2(a)4d); 2.3¢a)-Q); 3.2.

13b

6. In addition to the final statement of contentions, the Board itself raised

questions on which it required the Applicant and Staff to produce testimony.

These questions were issued as Appendix A to the Board's September 24 Order

and are reproduced herein as Appendix B to this Initial Decision. (Appendix B is

omitted trom this publication.)

7. Pursuant to published notice! the Board held a third Prehearing

Conterence on October 8, 1974. Thereafter, the evidentiary hearings began on

October 16, 1974, and continued on consecutive days until the hearing was

completed, except for those recesses requested by the parties.'? Limited

appearance statements were received in the record from four persons.! 2

8. The record in this case consists of all the material pleadings filed, all the

evidence received, including all the exhibits identified and incorporated in

Appendix C (omitted from this publication) to this Initial Decision, and all the

laniscripts of testimony presented at the prehearing conferences and the

evidentiary hearing us corrected by Order correcting transcripts dated

February 27, 1975. The Board, after discussion with the parties, undertook its

own independent research and took official notice of a Statf exhibit it found to

be an official document of the State of Florida which had been consulted bya

Staff witness. In addition, at the request of the Board,'* made on the record

with notice to all parties, the Applicant filed on November 27, 1974, with copies

to all parties, (a) the variance issued to the Applicant by the Florida Department

of Pollution Control (DPC), (b) Applicant’s letter to said DPC dated

November 25, 1974. These three documents ure received into evidence as

Applicant’s Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 respectively.

9.In making these findings and conclusions, the Board reviewed and

considered the entire record of the proceeding and all the proposed findings of

fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties in the proceeding. All of

such proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not

incorporated directly or inferentially herein are rejected as being unsupported in

law or fact or as unnecessary to the rendering of this Partial Initial Decision.

Numerous procedural motions and pleadings presented in the course of this

proceeding were considered and resolved by the Board on the record and are not

addressed in this Partial Initial Decision unless specifically referred to in the

proposed findings of the parties and considered by the Board to be necessary in

the rendering of this Decision. It is to be noted that the further evidentiary

'' 39 Fed. Reg. 33587, September 18,1974.

'* Hearings were held on October 16-18, October 21-25, November 6-8 and No-

vember 18-19.

'* Bruce Robinson of West Palm Beach, (Tr. 24%). Harry Alder of Ft. Pierce (Tr. 249),

Betty Lou Wells of Ft. Pierce (Tr. 251), and Carol Herzog of Ft. Pierce, (Tr. 250 and 260).

'* Tr. 3299.

14b

hearings to be held on the health and safety phase in this proceeding will include

two contentions of Intervenors deferred from this environmental phase by

agreement of all parties.

10. The Intervenor filed “Intervenor’s Proposed Findings of Law” on

December 16, 1974, and failed in that document to address Contentions 1.1,

1.2, 1.2.1, 1.6(c), 2.3, and 3.2. The Applicant filed “Reply of Applicant to

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” on December 27, 1974, in

which the Board is requested to declare the Intervenor to be in default with

respect to these issues. The Board, while agreeing that such default may exist,

will nevertheless address all of the matters in controversy in an effort to resolve

these matters on merit rather than on technical grounds.

Il. Findings of Fact

A. Matters in Controversy

11. For clarity the Board ‘vill first address ard resolve the matters in

controversy admitted in this proceeding before addressing the ultimate issues

contained in the Corynission’s Notice of Hearing or the questions posed by the

Board. Contentions that are closely related will be grouped in categories and

considered simultaneously .

12. The radiological impact of the proposed facility was the subject of the

following contentions:

Contentions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2.1

1.1 Whether the St. Lucie Unit 2, alone, or in combination with other

plants on the site will discharge radioactive effluents to air and water which

are not “as low as practicable” as to:

(a) Gaseous radwaste from condenser air ejectors, mechanical vacuum

pump; radwaste, reactor and turbine building vents; and containment purge.

(b) Liquid radwaste returned to the condensate system and packaged for

offsite shipment or discharged from the plant in the circulating water

system.

1.2 Whether even if radioactive effluents from St. Lucie Unit No. 2,

alone, or in combination with other plants on the site, comply with the

Commission’s “as low as practicable” criteria, the cost-benefit balance is

unfavorable for the facility because the following costs are still too great:

(a) The genetic effect on the population and plant employees generally;

(b) The genetic effect on human fetuses and breast-fed infants;

15b

(L) The somatic eftect through milk pathway to consumers of milk

produced within a 50-mile radius of facility ;'$

(d) The genetic effect through the food pathway including leafy

vegetables.

1.2.1 Whether even if radivactive effluents from St. Lucie Unit No. 2

alone, or in combination with other plants on the site, comply with the

Commission’s “as low as practicable” criteria, the cost-benefit balance is

unfavorable for said Unit No. 2 because such effluents will produce somatic

damage to persons particularly susceptible to carcinoma.

13. Dr. Walton A. Rodger conducted an independent evaluation of the

proposed facility, on behalf of the Applicant, using both the Staff's standards

and a subjective cost-benefit analysis.'® All radwaste systems cited in

Contention 1.1 were included.'” Dr. Rodger concluded that the design guides of

the proposed Appendix | to 10 CFR Part 50 are met.'® Using his cost-benefit

analysis, Dr. Rodger also concluded that no additional radwaste treatment

systems are warranted even if the population within 50 miles were to double.' 9

14. Drs. Joop W. Thiessen and Roger Linnemann evaluated genetic and

somatic effects of radioactive effluents from the St. Lucie facility on behalf of

the Applicant. They conclude that the genetic effects addressed in Contention

1.2 would not be measurable and that in the case of the general population such

effects would be trivial.?° With regard to Contention 1.2(c), they conclude that

the risk of thyroid cancer, the dominant somatic effect through the milk

pathway, will not be increased over that in the population at large?! Finally

they conclude that the risk io susceptible persons from other carcinogenic

factors is far more important than their risk from all types of radiation noting

that the radiation component of the risk is dominated by the hatural

background radiation.??

| 15. The Staff evaluated the facility, including all radwaste treatment systems

cited in Contention 1.1.7? Using tabulated releases?* and dose calculations? 5

| ‘At the request of the Intervenor, and following oral argument, the word somatic was

ee in licu of the word genetic previously appearing in 1.2). (Tr. 446) |

_ | Testimony of Dr. W. A. Rodger following Tr. 2098, p. 1-3.

Id., pp. 4, 8.

'*Id. at p. 18.

'id.. at p. 22; Tr. 2108-11.

5 Jestimony of Drs. Thiessen and Linnemann following Tr. 2100, p. 15.

_ , peuthnony of Drs. Thiessen and Linnemann following Tr 2102, p. 4,

% Me cndaeseniece of Drs. Thiessen and Linnemann following Tr. 2106, p. 7.

Testimony of James C. Malaro following Tr. 22236 pp. 4-5

7*FES pp. 3-26, 3-31.

7S FES Section 5.4.

16b

based on these releases, the Stall Concluded that the St. Lucie facility will meet

all of the Stalf’s “as low as practicable” guidelines, and in the Technical

Specifications, the Applicant will be requued to do so.7°

lo. Using population doses calculated by Staff Witness David A. Baker?”

Stuff Witness Dr. Michael A. Bender?’ evaluated genetic effects and

Dr. Norman A. Frigerio?’? evaluated somatic effects. The Staff concluded that

health effects will be negligible both in the exposed population and in its

descendants.?° With respect to Contention |.2(c), the Staff concluded that the

somatic msk through the milk pathway is so low that not a single mortality

would be expected during the expected life of the plant.?!

17. With respect to these contentions, Intervenors through their Witness

Dr. Karl Z. Morgan questioned the calculation of 1-131 dose because of a

discrepancy between 1-131 gaseous release calculations as made by the Applicant

and the Stalf.?? However, the order-of-magnitude discrepancy (0.01 Ci/yr as

compared to 0.09 Ci/yr) appears in a single component of the total 1-131 release

and was explained by the use of different sets of assumptions.” } Calculations of

total release of 1-131 are more nearly in agreement: 0.31 Ci/yr as compared to

0.18 Ci/yr,?* and there is agreement that'the dose is determined by the total

release.?* Dr. Morgan also questioned the Staff's calculations of liquid releases

as found in Table 3.3 of the FES p. 3-26, suggesting a number of improper

omissions.?® He asserted that, based on very conservative assumptions, a dose of

1 mrem/yr from C-14 could be expected at one kilometer from the plant.*?

However, the witness stated that he had performed no calculations for

St. Lucie? ® that the calculated result he cited is probably very high, perhaps by

a factor of 100;°% and agreed that even the cited result would not exceed the

Statf’s guidelines.4° Dr. Morgan also asserted that a number of hazardous heavy

2#See footnote 23, p. S supra (hereinafter a footnote will be designated “note”).

27Testmony of David A. Baker, original version following Tr. 2246; amended version

following Ir. 2376.

2* Testimony of Michacl A. Bender following Tr. 2555 (Corrections, Tr. 2364-67).

?*Testimony of Norman A. Fngerio following Tr. 2503.

>°Note 28, p. 9.

>* Note 29, p. 1.

>2 Testimony of Karl Z. Morgan following Tr. 3052, p. 1; Tr. 2885.

> ELS p. 3-29

**Id., p. 3-30.

*STr. 3063-64.

**Note 32, p. 2.

7 Pr, 3117-18.

S¥5e, 3075.

>* Tr. 3077.

“OTe: SE.

17b

isotopes, including those of plutonium and americium, were improperly omitted

from Table 3.3 of the FES.*! He also criticized Table 3.3 of the FES because of

its criterion for excluding all isotopes having less than a stated concentration.4?

As to his points regarding Table 3.3 of the FES, Staff Witness Kastner explained

that the criterion for excluding isotopes by concentration level was selected after

studying the biological risks associated with the excluded isotopes and

determining that their contributions would be negligible.4*? The Board accepts

the explanation of the Staff as reasonable and hereby modifies the FES

accordingly to incorporate the above explanation of Table 3.3 as given by

Witness Kastner in his testimony.

18. During the course of the hearing, Intervenor’s counsel alleged that dose

calculations to milk consumers were not performed properly and that he wished

to provide independent calculations.** The Board, in seeking to develop the

record fully, provided several opportunities to the Intervenors, made over

objections of other parties, to present such data and calculations.** However,

none were produced. Population doses were calculated by the Applicant and

Staff by using available cow census data.*® Upon the Board's inquiry as to the

location of the nearest cow, Applicant and Staff noted that their calculations

were based on the nearest cow being 7.5 miles from the proposed facility.4” The

Environmental Protection Agency, commenting on the Draft Environmental

Statement, noted a nearest potential pasture at two miles and calculated that a

cow pastured there might result in a thyroid dose of 40 mrem/yr for a six-month

old infant.4* Applicant has agreed to the EPA suggestion of monitoring the

actual locations of cows during plant operation, and the Board hereby makes

this a condition of whatever authorizations flow from this Partial Initial

Decision.

19. In addition, Witness Morgan questioned whether dose calculations should

be restricted to persons within a 50-mile radius and not extended to include

other persons who consume food produced within that radius.*? However, the

record indicates that Staff Witness Baker calculated the milk dose both ways.*°

*' Tr, 2887-8, 2905, 3149.

*?Tr. 3150-51.

** Tr. 3210, 3214, 3216, 3235.

**Tr. 174, 185.

** Tr. 197, 241, 243, 452, 682, 1275.

“® Tr. 2215, 2387; Witness Buker, Table Al.

*7Tr. 2177-2180, 2215

“* PES pp. 11-9, A-14.

**Note 32, p. 1; Tr. 2832, 3065.

°° Note 27, pp. 5,6, A-1, A-2.

18b

The tormer method yielded the higher dose and was therefore adopted by the

Statf for conservatism *!

20 Witness Morgan questioned several tiets and procedures used bv the

Staff, asserting that’ Ga) The E13h dose could be caleulated more accurately by

means of a three-component model proposed by the Tatermational Commsston

on Radiological Protection 52 However, this anode! has not yet been oublished

although the maternal as supposedly available through Oak Ridve National

Laboratory © * With respect to E31, Witness Morgan fist stated: that the

Improvement in accuniey would be less than five percent but later modited this

conclusion and stated that he would be surprised it it were only five percent? 4

(b) The Staffs formula for the genetically significant dose (GSD) was mecorrect.

He offered an alternative formula®* Staff) Witness Bender stated that

Dr. Morgan's proposed alternative formula is proper in some circumstances, such

aS a retrospective study, bat inappropriate tor a future population such as the

one in question.°® Jn this regard Witness Morgan stated that the calculated GSD

should have been multiplied by 30 to account for accumulation up to the mean

age of reproduction.’ ’ Staff Witness Bender stated that he had properly

accounted: for this factor of 30 in converting generation doses to annual doses."

(c) The choice of whole body dose to approximate the GSD was net being

conservative.’ ? Witness Bender replied that this choice was conservative because

no significant amounts of radionuclides known to concentrate in the gonads

would be discharged from the St. Lucie facility.°”

21. The genetic effects listed in Contention L.2 were examined by witnesses

for the Applicant®' and for the Statf.°? They concluded that the total genetic

risk is almost entirely determined by the exposure of plant per onuel, and the

resulting increase in ill health is estimated as between O.OO0L™ and 0.001%, The

increased probability of genetic harm to oftspring of plant personnel was

estimated as O.01% to 0.1607°* by Applicant and as 0.03% by Sit" These

*"Note 27, p. A-2

5? Witness Mornin, see note 32, p. b. Tr. 3064.

Str. 3069

**1r. 3071

> bestamony of Karl 7. Morgan following Tr. 2830, po 2046 3121

S* Tr. 3196-97

**See note 32, p. 1

‘Sir. 3198

** Tr, 2889-94

*' br 3198 3200

*'Sce note 20, pp. d.9

*? Beader, p. 6

**See note 20 p lo

** Bender, pp. 6. 7

19b

figures are percentages of the oO” natural incidence of genetic detects, so that the

percentage of incidence would tise from 6.0 to 6 QOTR 7, or to 6.0036% if the

dose were doubled.” *

22. The somatic risk to consumers of milk, cited in Contention 1.2(c), was

estimated by the Applicant”® and by the Staff.°7 The former estimated a

maximum of one extra case of thyroid cancer in 20 years, the latter estimated

less than one case in 110 years. Thyroid dose is considered to be the critical

factor. As to cows’ muk, it is estimated as less than 2 mrem/yr for both Units |

and 2 combined.®*® As to a mother nursing a small child and eating 72 kg/yr of

leafy vegetables from a garden at the nearest residence, she would receive an

estimated maximum thyroid dose of 1.4 mrem/yr.°? Assuming that 30% of the

mother’s radioiodine intake is transferred to her milk, the nursing child would

receive an estimated thyroid dose of 3.5 mrem/yr.’°

23. With respect to Contention 1.2.1, witnesses for Applicant testified that

general predisposition to develop cancer appears to be nonexistent, that a

genetically determined predisposition in certain individuals has been postulated,

but only in theory;’' and that the risk to susceptible persons from other

carcinogenic factors far outweighs any risk from the St. Lucie facility.7? The

Staff likewise concluded that there is no evidence that affected persons are more

susceptible to induction of carcinoma by radiation and that health etfects will be

negligible.’*

24. Without advancing calculations or numerical comparisons and without

suggesting any basis in the Commission's rules or regulations requiring same,

Intervenor Witness Morgan asserted that “dose commitments”’* should be

calculated and used for the St. Lucie 2 facility, as well as for nuclear facilities in

general. While such a proposal was not considered within the Commnission’s

Rules and Regulations and considered not necessary to the rendering of this

Decision, the Board ts of the opinion that the proposal merits further review and

evaluation. Accordingly, the parties are advised that the Board will receive

evidence on this subject during the health and safety phase of this proceeding.

**Tr. 263839

**See note 21, p 3.

*7See note 29, p. 1.

“* EES p. §-15. Rodger Table 21, Ir 2131

*°ES p. $-17.

"ld, Pr. 2535-36.

7" See note 22, pp. §. 6.

eg me

** Bender, pp. 8, 9

74See note 32, p. 2, Tr. 3083-88

20b

25. Witness Morgan stated that there is no dose of radiation so low that the

probability of radiation damage would be zero.’* He asserted that the linear

hypothesis for extrapolating from high dose to low dose may not be

conservative.”® However, witnesses for all parties agreed that they have used. or

would use, the linear hypothesis.”’ The Board accepts the linear hypothesis #3 a

basis for the Staff's conclusions but notes that there is disagreement regarding

the importance of “uncertainties”.

26. Witness Morgan questioned’® the Applicant's health physics proge'm

described in Section 12 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report’? and

summarized at p.12-5 in the Safety Evaluation Report.*° The Board will

inquire in greater detail into the health physics program at an appropriate time

during the health and safety phase of this proceeding and accordingly defers any

ruling thereon at this time. r,

27. Intervenors contend that th®*tstRnated dose of 15 man-rem per vear

from fuel transportation to and from the site (both units) is too high*! and

proposed shipment of fuel by barge as an alternative. There was other testimony.

however, to the effect that there is no assurance that reprocessing facilities will

be able to handle barge shipments.*? The issue raised deals with direct » “tiation

from shielded fuel elements in transit and does not appear materially reievant to

Contentions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2.1, which deal with radioactive effluents from the

plant. The Board permitted some testimony on this point until it became clear

that there was no material issue at this environmental phase of the proceedings.

28. Witness Morgan asserted that the estimated dose to plant personnel is

much too high.** The Staff estimate for a typical plant is 450 man-rem/yr,

including nonroutine events, based on operating experience.** While Applicant's

calculations for St. Lucie Unit No.1 were cited as 75 man-rem/vr. 5

nevertheless the figure of 450 man-rem/yr was adopted by the Staff in the FES.

Both the Applicant and Staff used 450 man-rem/yr in calculating genetic effects

of radwaste in an effort to be conservative. [lie Board expects the Applicant to

apply the principle of keeping occupational exposures, as well as exposures to

78 See note 32, p. 4.

ldo p 7: Tr 2848-49,

77 Thiessen and Linnemann, note 20, p. 3, Tr 2i 0) Bender. p 3. tr 2860. Morgan

Tr. 3106, 3121, 3139. 3157

7*® See note 32, Pp 2: Tr. 2880, 3088

7* Applicant's | shibit 2

*°SER following Ir. 3344

*' See note 32. p 3. Tr 2843

*24r 3100-0),

**See note 32, p 3: Tr. 2895. 2902, 3103, 3126.

**EES p. 5-22.

®* Tr 2481, 2902

21b

the general population, “as tow as practicable’ | Phe Board concludes that 75

man-rem, yr is a reasonable. practicable level and hereby makes it a condition of

this license

29.In connection with his testimony on waste treatment systems,

Applicant’s Witness Rodger was asked by the Board as to whether he had

considered the possible effects of using recycled plutonium fuel in St. Lucie Unit

No. 2.°° There is no testimony of record that such fuel will be used in St. Lucie

Unit No. 2. The question simply arose in the context of a discussion about the

leakage of radioactivity into the primary coolant and was answered by the

witness to the satisfaction of the Board.*? Subsequently, Intervenor’s counsel

sought to raise a new issue in this proceeding of whether the Applicant intended

to use recycled plutonium in St. Lucie Unit No. 2.°* The Board ruled that the

issue was not relevant to the application under review, was not germane to the

proceedings, and was being raised for purposes of delay only.*?

30. The Board considered it significant that witnesses for the Applicant and

Staff agreed that the expected radiological effects do not affect the cost-benefit

balance for St. Lucie Unit No. 27° and that Intervenors’ expert Witness Morgan

believes that, even with the alleged risks, the expected benefits outweigh the

expected costs.?'

31. Based on the evidence of record, including contradictory testimony as to

Contentions 1.1. 1.2 as amended, and 1.2.1, the Board finds that radioactive

effluents trom the proposed St. Lucie Unit No. 2 will be “as low as practicable”

and that any such releases will not materially affect the cost-benefit balance in

favor of the proposed facility.

Contention 1.3

Contention 1.3 reads as follows:

Whether sufficient need for power will exist to justify the present

construction of the facility, particularly whether:

(a) the projected reserve margin without the facility would be adequate,

(b) conservation measures by consumers due to changes in the rate

structure designed to reduce the demand for electricity including peak

pricing and higher overall prices will eliminate or postpone the need for the

facility.

"ST: 2IK1. 2487.

*7 Ir. 2164-66: Tr. 2181-82. 2187-88

®* Tr. 2855-64, 2869-7#, 3053-55, 3362.

®9 Tr. 2856-57, 2872-73, 3035, 3054-55, 3362.

*°See note 20, p. Li note 21, p. 4. note 22. p. 7. Bender, p. 9.

°'Tr. 3127, 3174.

22b

(co) whether or not there shall occur in the tuture a slowed rate of

economte growth in Flonda, which would reduce the need for power;

(d) whether there are power pools for Applicant to join; and if so, by

joining such) pools, whether its reserve needs would be diminished

sufficiently to eliminate the need for the facility;

(ec) conservation of electricity by Applicant's customers due to increased

rates presently occurring.

32. As to Contention 1.3(a), forecasts of reserve margins in 1980 were made

by Witness Bivans and Witness Beyer. Witness Bivans testified that demands from

1957 through 1973 have increased at the rate of 13 to 14% per year. This is

approximately twice the national average. The rate first projected by the

Applicant for the period up to 1981 was an 11.3% annual rate of growth of peak

demand. Recent changes in patterns of energy use and costs make it necessary to

assume that) historical patterns would not continue. Plans were therefore

developed for additional generating units which will accommodate a band of

growth rates of from 7 to 11%.°? The 7% minimum growth rate figure took into

consideration all adverse factors affecting growth.’ it was Mr. Bivans’ testi-

mony that a reduced rate of growth would not affect FPL’s need for St. Lucie 2

as a base load generating facility at the earliest possible completion date.’ ‘

33. Witness Beyer testified that he had conducted an analysis ot the

Applicant’s system from records supplied by the Federal Power Commission and

the Southeast Electrical Liability Council and had made a loss-load probability

study of the Applicant's system, Witness Beyer testified that the Applicant's

system as planned with St. Lucie Unit No. 2 would experience a loss of load of

1.10 hours during a peak week in 1980. Without the capacity of St. Lucie 2, the

loss-load would be increased to 3.46 hours during such a peak week. This loss of

load period was in excess of the Applicant's operational criterion. Thus Beyer

concluded that the added capacity of St. Lucie 2 was needed to provide

adequate reserves.’* Intervenor provided no direct case on this subject but

through crossexamination showed that in July 1974 the rate of increase per

kilowatt-hour of sales was only 1% greater than in the previous year.*°

Applicant’s Witness Bivans testified that, in June, July, and August of 1974,

actual consumption was less than in the previous year, but in March, April, May,

and September it had been slightly above the previous year. Thus the net

increase for 1974 would be approximately 2%.°7 For the 2% cumulative

*? Witness Bivans following Tr, 383, p. 7.

hd po

**ld.. pp. 18, 16

** Witness Beyer following Tr, 604 at pp. 16, 17.

** tr 406

“Tr, 399, 404, 408.409.

23b

increase in sales, there was a corresponding 5.2% increase in peak load.

Questioned as to why a minimum peak load projection of 7% and a maximum

projection of 11% could be justified when the 1973 to 1974 increase was only

§.2% in peak load and approximately only 2% in gross kilowatt-hour sales,

Bivans testified that the summer of 1974 figures were anomalous because of

unusual weather conditions. An additional 200 megawatts peak load would have

been required if the weather had been normal. He also indicated that there were

7% more customers in 1974 than in 1973 and thus the minimum 7% figure could

be justified even in terms of the 1973-1974 data.

34. The Board after reviewing the entire record, and based thereon, is

persuaded that projected reserve margins would not be adequate without the

proposed facility. Using even the most conservative projected demand forecasts,

the Board is convinced that the St. Lucie 2 unit is required to meet needs in the

year 1980.

35.As to Contention 1.3(b), Applicants and Staff presented direct

testimony. Applicant's Witness Guth made a detailed projection of FPL’s needs

for both commercial users and residential sales. His projections took into

consideration price elasticities and projected incomes, appliance saturation,

expected saturation trends, and competitive fuels.?* His projected demand,

considering residential, commercial, and industrial sales, was from 7.3 to 11.1%.

This agreed with the range set forth above by the Applicant.?? Witness Guth

testified that a refinement in the rate structure would not have a major impact

upon load. Adjusting the rates upwards during peak periods for peak period

usage in his opinion would have more impact upon total energy sales than on

systems loads and therefore would be ineffective in improving load factors.'°°

Witness Guthvargued that all available evidence suggested that demand during

peak periods was less responsive to price than demand during off-peak periods.

Thus Guth forecasts that the chances for a deteriorating average load factor

through 1980 were much greater than chances for an improving load factor.'°'

36. Staff Witness Uhler felt that there were possible shortcomings in the

present rate structure but that the concept of peak load pricing needed

scrutiny.'°? Uhler, however, concluded that consumer responses to changes in

rate structure are not yet well known; the effects upon demand are

speculative.'°* He testified that pricing effects always involve a period of lag

between a decision of a price change and consumer response.'°*

** Witness Guth following Tr. 381, pp. 1-48.

**id., p. 48.

ld. p. 50.

Olid. pp. 49, 50.

'®? Testimony of Witness Ubler following Tr. 601, p. 32.

"31d. p. 34.

041g. p. 27.

24b

37. Applicant's Witness Gerber testified that climatic conditions and need in

Florida were such that peak load pricing would not likely be effective in this

situation although it might be in other localities.'°* Gerber pointed out that,

since peak periods of usage are extended over so many hours of the day and so

many days of the year in Florida, there is no place to shift use. Even though

some demand might be shifted away from the peak period, the same energy

would be required and the effect would result in a higher load factor, which

would justify even more base load nuclear capacity. Gerber also concluded that

the uncertainties associated with peak load pricing, the cost of metering, the

problem of communication to the consumer of information regarding the peak,

and other unresolved problems would prevent implementation of such a policy

at this time.'°°

38. After considering all the evidence of record, the Board concludes, based

thereon, that a rate structure change would be ineffective at this time towards

materially reducing demand.

49. Contention 1.3(c) was addressed through direct testimony by Applicant

Witness Gerber and Staff Witness Uhler. Their responses indicated that a slower

rate of economic growth in the future wouldgnot reduce the need for power.

Witness Gerber cited the following reasons for the past growth of electricity in

Florida: (1) a rising standard of living, (2) population growth, (3) rising levels of

economic income, and (4) general economic expansion.'°7? Witness Gerber,

however, did not believe that the past growth rate in the use of energy would

persist in the FPL area in 1980. He projected a basic growth thrust for the FPL

area though at a more moderate rate than in the past.'°* The basis for the

continued growth in demand was the 3.78% annual population increase, of

which 3.35% was accounted for by migration. He also projected continued

population growth because of continued commercial and industrial employment

opportunities, as well as the expectation of increased migration of people with

retirement incomes, The rate of growth of population between 1970 and 1980

was projected to be 3.3% and was projected to decrease to 2.5% in the

succeeding decade.'°® Gerber projected that real personal income in the

1969-1980 period would increase at the rate of 6.1% in Florida vs. a 4%

nationwide average. Similarly higher manufacturing earnings were projected for

Florida. The effect of these csonomic changes would be that the projected

annual increase of power sales of FPL would decrease from the 14.5% between

1950 and 1973 to an annual average growth rate of 10.1% between 1973 and

'®* Testimony of Witness Gerber following Tr 461, p28

‘Sid. pp. 24, 29

"Gerber, pp. 10, 11

ee Se

reg es OD

25b

1980.'' Gerber felt that the present economic recession, the high interest rate,

and unemployment would cause a temporary decline in real income, that such

adverse economic conditions would not persist long term, and that 1 would be

unreasonable to base a projection of TORO energy requirements upon a

continuing recession. ''

40. Staff Witness Uhler’s testimony was in substantial agreement with the

testimony of Witness Gerber, ie., that economic conditions in Florida would not

reduce the demand for power sufficiently to postpone the need for the facility.

He forecast higher than average real per capita incomes in Florida.''? Expanded

population, personal income, and economic activity would not substantially

decrease the demand for power. Although there are offsetting factors (life-styles,

energy prices, and national policies) that tend to cloud forecasts, based on

historic relationships, Uhler believed the data indicated an economic expansion

that will be associated with a significant increase in demand for electric

services.’ '*

41. While Intervenor presented no direct testimony on this contention, he

attempted to show through crossexamination that the present. recession

together with the declining tourist industry in southeastern Florida would have

some impact upon future power needs. Witness Uhler’s testimony, however,

indicated that, although tourist expenditures Were down from the previous

winter,''* there were definite indications of expanded economic activity in

Florida.

2. Based on the uncontradicted preponderance of evidence in the record,

the Board finds no evidence of a slowed rate of economic growth which would

postpone need for the Florida plant.

43. As to Contention 1.3(d), the Board noted that Applicant's Witness

Bivans testified that, although there is a present possibility for load sharing

within the State of Florida, load sharing with other states must await

transmission network ties to units in Georgia. Although such ties have been

proposed, even if such a large high voltage connection grid were completed, it

would only reduce to a small degree the requirements for daily operating reserve

and would not reduce the requirement for installed reserves.’ '* Bivans testified

that the numerous interconnections with other utilities in the State of Florida

operate ona voluntary basis, that standby reserves are available in an emergency,

but that there are no formal power pools within the state. The out of state

'?ld. pik

ei

''? Uhler following Tr. 601, p. 20.

aie :

*'* Tr. 624

'' © Witness Bivans following Tr. 383, p. 20

26b

interconnection is through an intermediary (Florida Power Corporation) which

has interties with the Gull Power Company.''® Witness Bivans testified that he

was actively pursuing additional interconnections with Georgia Power Company

but that such mterties would not reduce the reserve requirements,

44. Intervenor through crossexamination of Witness Bivans explored the

possibility of purchasing power from companies both within and outside the

State of Florida.'' 7 However, Bivans testified that no firm power was available

for sale from these companies at the present and that only emergency power

could be purchased from other utilities.

45. While it was apparent that FPL had made little or no effort to

interconnect with other utilities for the purpose of sharing power, nevertheless

the Board finds no indication from the testimony or crossexamination that

joining other power pools was a viable option at the present time which would

eliminate the need for the proposed facility.

46, Contention 1.3(e) related to the influence of recent price changes and

surcharges that were made in Florida to compensate for the increased cost of

fuel oil following increased oil price by the oil cartel. It was addressed by

Applicant’s Witnesses Guth and Gerber and by Staff Witness Uhler. Witness

Uhler’s testimony indicated that it is possible to demonstrate changes in

consumption in Florida resulting from the price increase imposed because of the

cost of residual fuel oils. Uhler’s analysis of the Florida data, however, indicated

that 10% expansion in sales took place in spite of a 10% increase in price. His

analysis also indicated that there was some growth in sales even though prices

were 30% higher.''® Thus, short term data available from Florida does not

support a conclusion that conservation will reduce need for the plant.''?

47. Witness Guth did not analyze directly the effect of the recent surcharge

in Florida upon demand. Although Guth stated that there is no firm evidence on

the point where the magnitude of price elasticity will be different in periods of

rising real prices, he suggests that a range of price elasticity for net usage could

be from 0.5 to —0.7.'?° However, considering other factors, such as income

elasticity, annual average changes in electricity price, and personal income, Guth

concludes that there will be a minimum rate of growth in net usage per customer

in the amount of 0.5% annually; a most optimistic case would give a 5.0% annual

increase in the rate of growth of customer usage.'?' Thus Guth predicts that the -

net effects of price elasticity will be partially overcome by other

‘16 Tr $32

oT Te. $36. 537

"8 Uhler p40.

weed

'2°CGuth, p. 29

Se iare 32

27b

considerations.'?? Witness Gerber testified that, although some conservation

may result from increase in prices, more efficient appliances, better insulation,

and reduced lighting standards, such opportunities for savings are limited and

would be realized gradually over a period of years. However, he did not feel that

energy prices would tend to lower the rate of growth of energy consumption in

view of the growing population and rising income levels which bring about a

trend in the opposite direction.’ ??

48. Apparently only Staff Witness Uhler had looked at the most recent FPL

data after imposition of surcharges resulting from the increased price of residual

fuel oil from the oil cartel. Although price appears to have affected demand,

there is no clear-cut evidence that in the long run there would be significant

decrease in the demand. In response to Board questioning, Witness Guth on the

other hand testified that it is too early to study the effects of the fuel

adjustment upon demand since it was complicated by inflation and other short

run problems.'?* Thus, although there was some doubt as to the ultimate effect

of price increases, the Board finds no material showing that the effect of such

increases would be sufficient to obviate the need for the St. Lucie 2 plant.

49. Generally with respect to Contention 1.3 the Board finds that the

specific subcontentions were in many ways made moot by uncontradicted

testimony offered by Witnesses Gerber and Uhler which indicated that recent

increases in price of competitive fuels for nuclear generating plants (a) make

nuclear fuel the most economical choice, and (b) make nuclear fuel more

certain, considering recent difficulties experienced in obtaining residual fuel oils.

Witness Gerber testified that the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 nuclear plant could be

justified on the basis of fuel savings by substitution for residual oil fired

generation, even if the increased capacity of this unit were entirely surplus. This

testimony thus makes moot all arguments regarding the precise percentage rate

of increase in demand for Florida during the period of construction of St. Lucie

Unit No. 2. Gerber testified that substitution of nuclear fuel would result in

$140.2 million savings in excess of the annual fixed charges for the unit even if

the capacity were entirely surplus.'?* During cross-examination and in response

to questions by the Board, Gerber reduced the projections of savings by

approximately $19 million due to increase in capital cost of the plant not taken

into account in his prepared testimony.'?® Witness Uhler testified that utilities

such as FPL which are heavily dependent upon residual fuel oil are in a unique

position in regard to the construction of nuclear power plants since the

SF 0e., op. Bt, Sz.

"2 Gerber, pp. 22, 23.

Set. O68.

"?* SGerber, p. 26.

1eo Te. O99:

28b

availability of such residuals is not secure.'?” Unhler testified that the

Presidential Message to Congress had specifically said that new base load plants

should not burn oil.'?® Uhler further testified that the supply of natural gas

which FPL receives from United Gas pipeline experienced the most serious

curtailment problems of all jurisdictional pipelines of the Federal Power

Commission.'?? He further testified that the uncertainty of coal cleanup

technology and the fact that FPL has little experience in burning coal would

restrict the possible alternatives open to FPL at this time.'?° Questions directed

by the Board to Witness Uhler reinforced the suggestion that there was a

possibility that oil would not be available to base load units.'?' Thus, with

respect to competitive fuel availability and cost, the Board finds that there

appears to be a continuing strong justification for construction of St. Lucie Unit

No. 2 as a nuclear plant.

Contention 1.6(c)

50. Contention 1.6 relates to alternative energy sources, alternative sites, and

alternative ultimate heat sinks. Contentions 1.6(a) and 1.6(b), dealitig with

alternative energy sources and sites, were summarily dismissed.'*? Contention

1.6(c) states:

Whether the Staff’s Final Environmental Statement has sufficiently

considered alternatives to the proposed action including:

(c) alternative ultimate heat sink methods such as auxiliary ocean ‘take

or wet or dry cooling towers using salt or fresh water or treated sewage

effluent.

51. The Applicant'?? and Staff'?* presented testimony cr alternative

ultimate heat methods. One alternative is an auxiliary ocean intake. Staff

Witness Young noted that an event that would block the main intake canal

would also block the auxiliary intake if of similar design.'?5 Wet and dry

cooling towers were found by the Staff to cost more and to have susceptibility

to storm damage over the proposed system.'?® The Staff considered a cooling

lake and found the environmental impact on the island to be greater than the

'27Tr. 636.

'29Tr 635.

‘errs.

.2eTp. Ore.

'3'Tr 643,644.

'32See paragraph 5, supra.

'* > Testimony of J. R. Fotheringham following Tr. 2086.

'34Testimony of John Young following Tr. 2087.

51d p. 2.

hate

29b

proposed design.'*7 The use of treated sewage as a coulant was considered by

both Applicant and Staff witnesses who agreed there is no source for such

sewage.'** In addition to a higher economic cost, Witness Fotheringham

considered that the environmental costs of a 1200 ft. jetty and a 400 tt. wide

channel would be excessive.'*? He also testified that towers would require more

space, with the attendant environmental effects, than the present system which

is going to be used by Unit No. 1 in any event.'*® Following review of the

entire record on alternatives considered, the Board finds that the Applicant and

Staff have considered alternative heat sink methods. The Board concludes that

the proposed system using Big Mud Creek is the best alternative both from the

standpoint of cost and environmental impact.

Contention 2.1(b)

Whether the proposed site meets the requirement of 10 CFR Part 100 as

to meteorological conditions including:

(b) whether hurricanes pose such a severe threat to the safe operation,

due to their accompanying land erosion, high winds and storm surges, and

their resultant effect on the site, its equipment, buildings and the intake

water canal and emergency cooling canal and means of ingress and egress,

that the site is unsuitable.

52. All three parties presented direct testimony on this contention. In

weighing and evaluating conflicting evidence, the Board took into consideration

the fact that each of the witnesses offered had different backgrounds and

different expertise. Staff Witness LewisG. Hulman is primarily a hydraulic

engineer with experience in hurricane damage from a hydrologist'’s standpoint

with an understanding of water movements, soil erosion, erosional effects, and

surges. Applicant's Witness Fei-Fan Yeh also has a background in hydrological

engineering and is well qualified to make an assessment of erosional damage

arising from waves and water movements. However, the Board found that

Dr. Yeh had a limited understanding of hurricane behavior and was not an

expert in hurricane characteristics. Since Witnesses Hulman and Yeh had limited

backgrounds in meteorology, they did not appear qualified to use an analog

methodology in predicting hurricane intensity and effects. Intervenor's Witness

Arnold L. Sugg, on the other hand, obviously had widespread experience as to

the meteorological characteristics of hurricanes and their wind speeds and surge

heights, and he has had practical experience witnessing erosional effects. By

voit | DO

"281d. p. 4; note 128, p. 4.

"Note 133, pp. 2, 3.

aie | tO

30b

virtue of fais experience with past hurricanes in Florida, Witness Sugg is qualified

to make some general judgments and predictions of hurricane damage. however,

the Board gave litthe weight to Mr. Sugg’s testimony on assessment of rates of

erosion damage or the specifics of soil, vegetation, and beach and water

conditions relating specifically to the St. Lucie site.

§3. The maximum probable hurricane (PMH) used in the analysts of the

Staff and Applicant is a hypothetical storm defined by certain criteria furnished

by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'*! This storm has intensity

characteristics (central pressure) lower than the other “great” hurricanes that

have struck the United States. As regards central pressure, it is slightly more

intense than Hurricane Camille and slightly more intense than the Labor Day

hurricane of 1935 at Key West. In assessing the elfects of the maximum

probable hurricane, Staff and Applicant witnesses nade assumptions regarding

the trajectory of the storm in relation to the coastline which would maximize

the storm surges, wind, and wave activity.'*? On crossexamination. the

Intervenor’s witness first testified that the maximum probable hurricane

postulated by the Applicant was more intense than most of the “great” Florida

hurricanes with the exception of Hurricane Camille.'*? Later during

cross-examination, Witness Sugg stated that the difference between the

maximum probable hurricane and Hurricane Camille was of little or no

significance.'** Thus, there appears to be little difference in the opinion of

experts as to the intensity and trajectory factors used in the calculations of the

Applicant and Staff, and there are really no facts in dispute.

54. There was no direct testimony offered by either the Staff or the

Applicant upon the effect of the duration of possible hurricanes in the vicinity

of St. Lucie 2. This question arose during crossexamination of Applicant's

Witness Yeh by the Intervenor and through direct and crossexamination of

Intervenor Witness Sugg.'** The maximum probable hurricane hypothesized in

the Intervenor and Staff testimony did not consider the possibility of a

hurricane stalling in the vicinity of the plant so that storm surge, wave, and wind

erosional effects would persist for several days. Witness Sugg testified that

storms can stall and remain approximately stationary for as long as 4 days.' =

He further testified that, when a tropical storm decelerates or slows down in this

way, it increases in intensity, and he cited examples within his experience of

tropical storms which had performed in this way and ones which had essentially

'4) Witness Hulman following Tr. 1688, pp. 5-6.

'*? Hulman following Tr. 1688, p. 6; Yeh, following Tr. 1838, p. 2.

eS Er 2Os0.

ewe 5 te

'4STr, 1915, 1922, 2069-72.

'46Tr. 2669, 2070.

31b

had a loop configuration whereby they struck a given area twice.'*? Thus,

Sugg’s testimony indicated that hurricanes could stall offshore in the warm

water of the Gulf Stream, could increase in intensity,'**® and could thereby

affect the St. Lucie coastline for a period up to 4 days. During such time winds

would be of gale, and possibly of hurricane, force category.'*° The Board could

find no evidence in the testimony of Witness Hulman or of Witness Yeh to

indicate that there had been any consideration given to the stalled hurricanes

hypothesized by Witness Sugg. Witness Yeh testified that, if the maximum

probable hurricane stalled, the wind velocity would decrease.'5° This was in

direct contradiction to a statement by Witness Sugg who had testified that a first

rule in hurricane forecasting was that deceleration of hurricanes was

accompanied by an increase in intensity.'*' Examination of Witness Yeh by

cross-examination and responses to questions of the Board indicated that this

witness had little or no direct knowledge of stalled hurricanes and hurricane

trajectories and speeds'*? but seemed to have relied heavily upon other sources

of information for his testimony in these areas. Under examination, he stated

that a hypothesized, stalled hurricane could be more damaging than the probable

maximum hurricane used in his analysis.'5* Since Witness Hulman did not

directly address this matter, the testimony of Witness Sugg appeared to the

Board to be more responsive on this point.

55.As to the question of hurricane surges, the Applicant estimated the

maximum surge level for the PMH to be 16.2 ft. mlw.'5* while the Staff’s surge

estimate was 16.7 ft. mlw.'** Witness Hulman testified that, with severe

breaching of the island in several places, wave run-up on the ocean side of the

plant island would reach a maximum level of +22 ft. mlw.'5® He. further

testified that the Applicant had been requested to provide for sandbagging and

stop-log closure structure to minimize any potential leaking to the +22 ft.

level.'57 Witness Yeh testified that the maximum peak storm surge and wave

run-up with a maximum PMH storm would not exceed +19 ft. mlw. but that all

safety features would be protected to the +22 ft. mlw.'5® His calculation of

**7Tr. 2070.

'*°Tr. 2069.

oo? Tr. 207i.

'SOTr 1911, 1936.

'S'Tr. 2069.

*S2Tr 1909-1915, 1936-38.

‘Sete, 190.

'S* Veh, p. 2.

‘SS Hulman, p. 8.

ing |

371g.

‘SS 3ek. eo: 2.

32b

surge run-up assumes a tide of 3.7 ft. and an initial surge of 1.5 ft. for a

combined total peak of PMH surge of 16.2 ft. mlw. Thus the Staff's witness and

the Applicant's witness differ somewhat in the calculated elevation of water and

wave run-up during the maximum probable hurricane. Witness Yeh explained

that the difference in these calculations was due primarily to the fact that the

Staff had not taken all topographic conditions into consideration in calculating a

22 ft. mlw. wave run-up. His calculations of 19 ft. reflected the “real”

topographic configuration of the area.' **

56. Witness Sugg testified that Hurricane Camille had surge levels at Pass

Christian, Miss., of 24.6 ft.'°° Witness Hulman also testified that the Hurricane

Camille at Pass Christian had a surge level of 23 ft. with a run-up to 25 ft.'°!

However, further testimony and crossexamination indicated that surges of this

height were not possible in the St. Lucie area because of the configuration of the

Continental Shelf. In the case of Camille striking the Mississippi Gulf Coast, the

shallow offshore shelf accounts for the extremely high surge height.'®? Witness

Sugg agreed that the shallowness of the Continental Shelf was a factor in

determining surge height.'®? He acknowledged that, all other things being equal,

the surge height at Hutchinson Island would be less than at the Texas Gulf

Coast.'**

57. Thus, no substantial evidence was developed in the record to indicate

that the storm surges would exceed the level recommended by the Staff for

protection of the plant (+22 ft. mlw.). Records of higher surges appeared to have

occurred only in areas with much shallower shelf configurations than

Hutchinson Island. In view of the substantial evidence in the record in support

of the designed protection level, the Board concludes that the hurricane surge

analysis is adequate.

58. With respect to beach and island erosion factors, all expert witnesses

(Hulman, Yeh, and Sugg) agreed that severe hurricanes would breach the dune

and erode the area between the ocean and the plant site. Witness Hulman

testified that the dune would be breached and washed away and that much of

the sand between the present waterline and plant nuclear island would virtually

disappear in a severe hurricane.'®* Witness Yeh hypothesized a 6-hour erosional

attack on the dunes by waves which had a height varying from +8 to +14 ft. and

calculated an average erosion of SO cubic yards per foot of shoreline. This would

'S°Tr. 1846.

*$°Sugg following 2000-B, p. 1.

orate, FTE,

°S8Te, 1713, 1714.

*63Tr. 2027.

16414.

'S5Tr. 1690.

33b

bring about 150 feet of horizontal recession with a surge level of 16.2 ft.'°* He

believed there would be virtually no foreseeable erosion of the plant island.'®7

Yeh further testified that there would be little erosion at the plant elevation

level (18 ft.) because the wave energy would be dissipated when the wave was

broken at the highway.'°*® There would be little energy to create erosion in the

area near the plant. His calculations indicated that a 10 ft. wave would erode

approximately 5 ft. of material from a 150 ft. strip beyond highway AIA.

Witness Yeh’s calculation of the erosion that would take place beyond the

highway with 16.2 ft. surge (150 ft. horizontal recession) he believed to be

conservative. However, his testimony indicated that (a) there was a difficult scale

problem in making such estimates:' °° (b) only erosion arising from wave run-up

would occur beyond the 150 ft. recession behind the roadway ; (c) flowing water

at the parking lot would be approximately 2.3 ft. deep;' 7° and (d) wave run-up

beyond the 18 ft. level of 1 ft. would create flooding at the perimeter of the

plant island.'?' In cross-examination, Witness Yeh considered a hypothetical

storm which had stalled in the area so that there was flow around the plant

island at the hypothesized surge level (16.3 ft.). He estimated that this would

give a water depth near the island of 2 to 3 ft. and, with a long duration storm,

would give | to 2 ft. of scour. This would not bring about cutting of the

island.'’? Witness Hulman indicated that, with a breach of the island at Big Mud

Creek, there would be erosion at the vicinity of the site'’* but that even with

such a breach the nuclear island would not be eroded to the extent that would

constitute a threat to any of the safety related structures.' 74

59.In view of the entire record, including consideration of conflicting

evidence therein, the Board concludes that ample evidence exists to indicate that

the hypothesized maximum probable hurricane would not create sufficient

erosion to threaten the plant and safety related structures even though water

completely covered the island. However, the Staff apparently did not consider

the situation postulated by the Intervenor’s Witness Sugg (erosion taking place

for a period of 4 days). Thus there remains an area of uncertainty concerning

damage in a situation in which several days of erosion from a maximum probable

hurricane stalled offshore followed by this hurricane moving inland and

producing a wave run-up to the height proposed by Hulman (22 ft.). However,

*€® Veh. pp. 3.4: Tr. 1873.

'®7 Veh. pp. 3.4.

"O°Fr. 1077.

'©°Tr. 1872, 1873.

aes

'7' Tr. 1878.

oY °Tr. 1982.

'79Tr. 1704.

17414.

34b

the Board concludes that, even with the most severe hypothesized situation,

structures protected to +22 ft. would not be threatened beyond that indicated

by analysis and calculations already completed. With respect to the integrity and

safety of the plant itself, the Board is persuaded by Witness Hulman’s testimony

that safety would not be threatened even with breaching of the island and a

wave run-up of 22 ft. mlw. if the Staff request that the Applicant take certain

measures to minimize inleakage was carried out.'’* However, since the Staff did

not formally consider stalled hurricanes and since additional protection may be

required for safety related structures in the event of this type of storm, the

Board directs the Staff and Applicant to specifically address the question of

stalled hurricanes and their possible safety related effects on St. Lucie No. 2 at

the health and safety hearings.

59a. The testimony of Applicant Witness Harris indicated that there would

be no problems of ingress or egress from the plant site in the event of severe

hurricanes since adequate hurricane warnings would be available to the facility.

With warning. the Applicant could adequately staff the plant so that it could be

kept in operation even though ingress and egress to facilities were inhibited.' 7°

Applicant Witness Fotheringham testified that ocean intake structures and

emergency cooling water canal would be able to withstand maximum impact of

a PMH and that emergency shutdown requirements could be met.'*7 In

reaching these conclusions, the Board expressly requires hereby that the

recommendations of the Staff relative to this matter be made part of the

technical specifications for any construction permit authorized pursuant to this

decision. Subject thereto the Board finds that the site meets the applicable

requirements as to meteorological conditions.

Contention 2.2

Whether the proposed site meets the requirements of 1O CFR Part 100 as

to population density and use characteristics of the site environs, including:

(a) whether Applicant and Staff have adequately considered present

population and future demographic change near the site, particularly

(1) whether increased population of Hutchinson Island resulting from

high-rise, high-density condominiums and resort hotel development with

larger tenant capacities,

(2) whether within the low-population zone (LPZ), real estate

developments and subdivisions on the mainland three to five miles away

from the proposed site which are currently more populous than Staff and

**Hulman, p. 11.

'7* Harris, p. 3

'? 7b otheringham following Tr. 1839, p. 2.

g

35b

Applicant estimate and whether this will result in the very high population

density within the next decade far in excess of Applicant’s population

projections in the Environmental Report (ER) and Preliminary Safety

Analysis Report (PSAR);

(3) in nearby cities of Stuart, Jensen Beach, White City, and Fort Pierce

within 10 miles of the proposed site;

(b) whether Applicant's presentation in the PSAR, Figure 2.1-2, an aerial

photograph of Hutchinson Island, fails to include the entire area from five to

ten miles from the proposed site and the development occurring there, and

whether such information is necessary to accurately assess site suitability;

(c) whether the demographic studies performed for Applicant by First

Research Corporation of Miami are inaccurate and misleading and

underestimate the high population in the site environs including the LPZ;

(d) whether there is a reasonable probability that appropriate measures

could be taken in the event of an accident to protect residents including

evacuation of LPZ personnel, particularly whether the single, two-lane

highway, A1A, on Hutchinson Island;

(1) is sufficient for evacuation and access for emergency equipment;

(2) could be separated by a storm or agcident at the site since the road

bisects the site which would result in division and splitting up of

emergency evacuation and safety efforts;

(3) would cause highway AIA traffic to bottleneck at the single bridge at

each end of the island, diminishing the possibility of escape from an island

in an emergency.

60. Some of the testimony on-this contention was conflicting as to several

aspects of population projections. In addition, and as more fully discussed

below, the Final Environmental Statement was found to contain erroneous data.

It was subsequently corrected with the addition of supplemental testimony from

the Staff upon a showing that the error was inadvertent and did not materially

change the cost benefit balance as presented in the FES.

61. Staff Witness Dr. Emile Bernard assembled available data on populations

and relied on available sources to arrive at future population figures.'7* By

education, Dr. Bernard is a physicist but has been employed recently (relatively

short perind) by the Regulatory Staff in a capacity that includes population

surveys and forecasts relating to proposed nuclear power plants.'7° He was

assigned in this capacity to the Staffs evaluation of the proposed St. Lucie

facility after the Intervenor had advised the Staff of what appeared to be errors

'7® Bernard testimony after Tr. 904, pp. 5-7, Tr. 905; 1281; 1443, 2711.

"7° Tr. 966. 989, 995.

36b

in the FES and ER.'*° Dr. Bernard provided both fact and opinion testimony.

The Board gave considerable weight as to the former; however, since he had little

or no experience in making regional planning studies, and was not familiar with

the usual methodology used in planning and projections, the Board gave less

weight to his opinions on population projections. Applicant’s Witness Moore! ®!

based his testimony on relatively extensive experience over many years in

population forecasts, and his familiarity with other projections of population

levels in the LPZ and the surrounding area to the year 2000. Mr. Moore had

made numerous short range forecasts for various business enterprises and

appeared to have considerable practical experience in this area. The Board was

not as persuaded by his opinions on long range trends, which tended to

extrapolate on past experience only. Intervenor Witness Schmidt,'®? a

professional urban and transportation regional planner, was found by the Board

to be well qualified to assess the likelihood of population levels in the vicinity of

the proposed St. Lucie 2 site. Witness Ament,'®? appearing under subpoena

issued at the request of Intervenor, was, likewise, a professionally trained

regional planner. In evaluating and balancing conflicting evidence presented by

these witnesses, the Board considered the type of backgrounds needed to make

judgments regarding the impact of future economic,’social, and political changes

upon growth and demographic data of any given area. Background in

demography, transportation, economics, etc., all enter into the qualifications to

make such predictions, as well as related experience, information obtained from

State and local planners and public officials, and familiarity with Hutchinson

Island and the adjacent area. The Board also considered the projected population

levels up to the year 2020.'®4

62. The Board concludes that there is an honest disagreement among experts .

as to future populations in the vicinity of St. Lucie 2. The witnesses testifying

on future population levels brought different skills, different viewpoints, and

emphasized different sets of factors in making their projections. There is no

clear-cut basis the Board can use for making a firm judgment as to which of the

3 population estimates is the more correct and which projection should be used

in forecasting the population levels 40 years from the completion of the plant.

Short term projections present few problems since agreement is sufficiently close

among all three. It is wiih the long term projections that experts diifer. The

Board considered the most conservative judgments to have been those of

Intervenor’s Witness Schmidt. His projections were based upon projected

'8°Tr 1466.

"*' Moore testimony (2.2(¢)) following Tr. 764, pp. 2.3. Tr. 2967.

'*? Schmidt testimony following Tr. 1089, 1096,

‘8° Tr 1038-81.

0°: $206

37b

constructions of known subdivisions up until 1990, followed by continuation of

accelerated rate of growth of the area for an indefinite period, perhaps as late as

2020.'®5 His forecasts were the most conservative (largest population) because

he assumes (1) full occupancy, (2) high density on the island resulting from

time-sharing of condominiums, and (3) exceptional growth in the area because

of existing projections of transportation facilities and a transportation corridor

in Florida, a concept currently considered by state planners.'*® Under

questioning by the Board, Schmidt conceded that all long range planning (e.g.,

20 years or more) relied very heavily upon judgments.'*? Such judgments based

upon corridors and transportation theory and new ideas regarding cost sharing of

condominiums, etc., must be balanced against Witness Moore’s projections based

upon past local experience but without indications that a full range of possible

future economic or technological changes have been adequately evaluated.

However, the Board after considering the entire record, concluded that the

difference between these experts is largely moot in view of the testimony of Van

Niel'®® and Bernard'®? and Moore'®® that projected improvements in plant

design by the Applicant would allow the LPZ to be reduced to | mile. Even the

most conservative population projections of Schmidt will meet the requirements

of 10 CFR Part 100 as to population density and evacuation. A hypothetical

doubling of Schmidt's projections for the LPZ apparently does not result in

conflict with the applicable Commission regulations." ?'

63. With respect to Contention 2.2(d), the Board finds, as further set forth

in paragraphs 69-74 below, that the Intervenor has failed to show that

evacuation planning in the control area was inadequate. In view of the

contention, the Board itself reviewed this subject matter but found no evidence

that would persuade us to reach a contrary conclusion from that testified to by

Applicant and Staff witnesses.

Centention 2.3

Whether the proposed site meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 as

to seismic considerations, particularly whether Applicant's seismic studies

are incomplete, inaccurate, inadequate, including:

(a) insufficient evidence of lack of faults;

(b) no information on ten-foot plus offsets;

'®STr 1208, 1148.

OT, 1149,

eS Te. 1216-17, 1250:

SOT, 1514.

‘8? Bernard after Tr. 2722, p. 2

19er, 33958

'? See footnote TRY

38b

(c) bore holes too far apart to detect faults;

(d) bore holes choice improper, i.e., no history submitted on bore hole

selections;

(e) failure to complete into St. Lucie County the study of the postulated

Martin County fault;

(f) an attempt to adequately chronicle earthquake history for three

hundred years;

(g) too few blow count samples in the area 70-feet to 85-feet depth strata

and whether this area shows liquefaction potential;

(h) failure to consider dynamic interaction of units 1 and 2;

(i) emergency cooling canal slide blockage potential;

(j) whether a fault exists five miles from the site and whether the fault is a

capable fault.

64. Contention 2.3 relates to the geological suitability of the site. The Staff

and Applicant presented direct testimony; the Intervenor did not. As stated in

the FES, the site is located on the east coast of the Florida peninsula which is

the land area of a much greater extension of the North American continent

called the Floridan Plateau, which Plateau lies within the Coastal Plain

physiographic province. The Applicant performed various geologic

investigations, including a detailed survey of published and unpublished

literature with geologic and structural maps and well log data, contact with

geologists familiar with the structure of the St. Lucie County area, a study of

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service aerial photographs

and Satellite photographs, and various types of field work, which included

geologic reconnaissance, borings, and continuous seismic reflection profiling.’ sg

The Staff reviewed the Applicant’s information and results of the testing

programs.'°? In addition, the Staff reviewed and evaluated information received

from the Staff consultants, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Coastal and

Geodetic Survey,'°* and contacted those individuals who had postulated that

faulting may exist in the site area.'?* The Board concludes that the Staff review

was adequate and that: (1) there are no geologic features in the site vicinity

representing a hazard or potential hazard to the St. Lucie facility, (2) the

lineaments are not fault controlled but are depositional in nature; (3) faulting

does not pass within 5 miles of the site, and surface faulting is not a potential

hazard in the site area; (4) the apparent offsets which were the bases for the

faulting postulated by Bermes, Lichtler, and Vernon may be due to a monoclinal

'?? Tesumony of Wetness G. F. Sowers following Tr. 1625, p. 2.

‘99 Tr 1674-75

194ny

*3T,. 1678

39b

flexure in the underlying strata which parallels the coastline;'®® (5) that any

faults which may exist do not offset upper formations and would not be

post-Miocene in age,'°” and therefore would not be capable faults within the

definition of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A. Accordingly, the Board finds that,

from a geological standpoint, the St. Lucie site meets the requirements of 10

CFR Part 100 and is suitable for a reactor of the general size and type proposed

by the Applicant.

65. Contention 2.3(f)(g) and (j) questions the seismological suitability of the

site. The St. Lucie site is located on Hutchinson Island in an area that was

covered with dense vegetation and mangrove swamps. The in-situ soils have been

removed by the Applicant and replaced with dense compacted fill.'°* The Safe

Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) for the St. Lucie site is based on the seismicity of

the Florida Platform of the Coastal Plain province. The Staff reviewed all the

historical earthquakes in the province and concluded that an earthquake would

not be expected to cause an intensity at the St. Lucie site that will exceed

intensity VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale.'°® The Applicant reviewed the

earthquake history o1 the Southeastern United States and the West Indies.

Records of the U.S. Geological Survey were reviewed, as well as individual

publications concerning earthquakes affecting Florida.2°® In addition, the

seismicity in Florida is low, which is reflected in the tectonic structures in

Florida. Although faults exist, they are old, with smaller offsets than seen in

seismically active regions. Thus, the historical tecord shows little seismic

activity.?°' The Staff concluded that the available record of 400 years of

earthquake history in the St. Lucie site region, while not complete relative to

smaller earthquakes, does not contain any earthquake larger than the earthquake

chosen for the SSE.?°? Accordingly, based on the evidence of record, the Board

finds that the earthquake history has been adequately chronicled for the past

three hundred years, that the site provided a suitable foundation for Category |

structures, that an intensity of VI MM is conservative, acceptable, and feasible

for the seismic design of the proposed facility, and that there are no foundation

conditions which would preclude the use of site for the proposed St. Lucie 2.

66.Contention 2.3(g) raised the question of whether there were too few

blow count samples in the area within the 70- to 85-ft. depth stratum and

whether this area shows liquefaction potential. Applicants performed 30 borings

*** Testimony of T. Cardone following Tr. 1669.

**7 Tr. 1678.

*®* Testimony of Dr. Bernreuter following Tr. 1669, p. 2.

*POSER 2.5.2.

2°°See note 192, or 2.3.

7°'1d., Attachment A

7°? Bernreuter following Tr 1669, p. $

40b

in the immediate plant area.2°> The Staff's review of the boring logs submitted

by the Applicant as part of the site investigation program indicated a stratum of

sand located approximately at elevation —70 extending to elevation —80 to —90

with relatively low blow counts. This suggests that the sands in the zone might

be loose, i.e., have a low density. However, these low relative density materials

are interfingered with materials having higher relative densities.2°* Only 3

samples from the low blow count zone were cyclically triaxially tested to

liquefaction, and two of them were tested at such high relative densities that it is

not possible to scale the data to the estimated in situ relative densities. After

careful review of the soil conditions at the St. Lucie site, the Staff concluded

that investigations additional to those already completed were not required to

establish that liquefaction would not occur in the low blow count zone, because

it has been the Staff's experience that extensive liquefaction should not be

expected to occur in the zone of loose sands because of (1) the high confining

pressures that exist at the depth of the layer resulting from the weight of the

Structures and the weight, due to the high finished grade (el. plus 18) of the

compacted backfill; (2) the low intensity VI (MM) of the postulated SSE; and

(3) the short time duration of the postulated SSE. The short time duration and

low intensity of the postulated SSE are extremely important because the much

denser sands above and below the low blow count zone will not have undergone

enough significant increase in pore pressure. Therefore no gross foundation

failures which could cause a hazard to Category I structures could occur.?°* The

Board agrees with the Staff's analysis and finds that blow count sampling was

adequate and that the site shows no potential for lique! action.

67. Contention 2.3(i) raised the question of emergency cooling canal slide

blockage potential. The Applicant has not shown that the soils inplace are not

subject to liquefaction and slope failure along that portion of the emergency

canal barrier and the far end of the switchyard. Therefore, the Staff has required

a boring program to determine which zones should be densified, including (1)

identification of any extensive zones of soft-sensitive clay that might exist which

might cause slope failure or to cause the canal barrier to fail, (2) removal or

other stabilization of these zones, (3) confirmation of results of the densification

by borings located in appropriate locations, and (4) improvement of the canal

barrier foundation. Only those slopes that contain a significant amount of

material (high slopes), or are located in restricted areas such as around the

emergency canal between Big Mud Creek and the Canal barrier, need to be

7°? Testimony of W.F. Mercurio (2.3(g)) following Tr. 1625, p. 1; PSAR 2.5.4.8,

Fig. 2.5-154

?°* Bernreuter, p. 6

7°* Bernreuter, p. 7

41b

improved because the postulated SSE intensity is too small to induce massive

failure of the low slopes of this part of the canal.?°° The Staff has concluded

that it is within the state-of-the art of soils engineering practice to engineer an

acceptable ultimate heat sink,?°7 and the Board agrees. Therefore the Board

finds that liquefaction does not cause the site to be unsuitable, and while it is an

unresolved safety issue it is not one which constitutes good cause for

withholding limited work authorization.

68.In addition, the Board asked the parties to address the question of

whether the functioning or the emergency cooling canal would be impaired or

lost in the event of earthquake slide blockage occurring simultaneously with an

extremely low tide.?°* The Staff concluded that if the Applicant agreed to

improve foundation conditions so that the canal barrier and the slopes between

the canal barrier and the plant would not fail, then this would remove the Staff's

concern about slope failure and possible blockage mechanisms. The Board

concludes that there will be no potential for blockage of the emergency cooling

canal in the event of an earthquake even with an extremely low tide, provided

that the in-situ soils are improved as recommended by the Staff. Accordingly the

Board hereby requires that sucii improvement be made a condition of any

permit or license that may be issued pursuant to this Decision.

Contention 3.2

Whether Applicant's emergency plan complies with Appendix E to 10 CFR

Part 50 in that neither Applicant nor any state agency has adequately

addressed the problem of adequate evacuation of the LPZ.

69. This contention together with Contention 2.2(d) related to whether the

road and bridge network was adequate to accommodate evacuation of the

population. The Applicant presented testimony by Mr. Kenneth Harris?°® and

Mr. John E. Buchanan?'°; the Staff presented testimony by Mr. Richard

Van Niel.?'' The Intervenor presented testimony through witnesses called by

subpoena as follows: Mr. Wallace Johnson, Mr. Brian Tredray, Mr. Philip

Thibedeau, Sheriff C.L. Norvell, Sheriff James D. Holt, and Capt. W. B.

Oliver.?!?

?°¢ Bernreuter testimony following Tr. 1666, pp. 38, 9.

2071g.

?°® Board Question IIID., See Appendix B.

?°° Testimony of Kenneth Harris following Tr. 1310.

?*° Testimony of John E. Buchanan following Tr. 1310

?"' Testimony of Richard Van Nici following Tr. 1310

2"2Tr 1414; Tr. 1817: Tr. 1840; Tr. 1568: Tr. 1592; Tr. 1602.

42b

70. The Applicant introduced testimony which evaluated the feasibility of

evacuation of the LPZ using ALA and found that 12 hours would be available

for evacuation and that the entire LPZ population projected for the year 2000

could be removed in less than 5 hours.?2'* The Regulatory Staff also evaluated

the ability of highway ALA to accommodate evacuation of the LPZ and found it

sufficient for evacuation and access of emergency equipment.?'* In addition the

Staff analyzed the situation which would exist if the highway were cut by a

major storm. The Staff found that a storm capable of breaking the highway

would prompt protective measures, which may include evacuztion prior to the

storm’s arrival. They determined that even if the highway were breached at the

site, evacuation could proceed in one direction so that evacuation and safety

efforts would not be impaired.?'* It was also noted that a storm of that

magnitude would provide more favorable dispersion in the event of a radioactive

release, thus making the necessity for evacuation less pronounced.

71. Applicant's Witness Harris?’® and Staff's Witness Van Niel?'” agreed

that the question of whether a bottleneck of traffic would occur as people

evacuated the island is not of significant concern, because the bridges are well

outside the LPZ. In addition the Staff offered the opinion that appropriate

traffic control would provide the necessary protective action objectives.?'* The

South Florida Area Coordinator for the Division of Disaster Preparedness for the

State of Florida testified that the feasibility of evacuation has been evaluated by

those state and local agencies charged with that responsibility. There is no

question but that an evacuatien is feasible and can be carried out within the

projected time frame for such actions.?!?

72. The Intervenor produced testimony by Wallace Johnson, Public Health

Physicist, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida,

who notec that his department has promulgated a Radiological Response Plan,

which has been reviewed by various agencies, including the AEC Regulatory

Staff.2?° In Mr. Johnson's professional opinion, the appropriate state agencies

have in fact adequately addressed the problem of evacuation of the LPZ as well

as other areas,??' and in the official position of the Division of Health, there is

in fact a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be

7" See note 209, p. 7.

7! *See note 211, p. 4.

27156 Id

7" © Harris following Tr. 1310. p. 8.

7! Van Nicl following Tr. 1500, p. §

21:8 Id.

7"* Buchanan following Tr. 1310, p. 4

7? °intervenor’s Exhibit 3 atp. 4

2241q Lp. 10

43b

taken in behalf of occupants within the five mile radius or at greater distance if

required.???

73. Intervenors Witness Mr. Brian Tredray, Martin County Civil Defense

Coordinator, familiar with and presently involved in the preparation of the

evacuation plans, testified that evacuation for a hypothetical 37,500 persons, all

located south of the plant in the LPZ, could be accomplished in 3.5 to 7

hours.??? Philip Thibedeau, Civil Defense Director for St. Lucie County, also

called by Intervenors, testified that he was involved in preparation of the

evacuation plan, that the plan was adequate, and that evacuation could and

would be accomplished.??* C. L. Norvell, Sheriff of St. Lucie County,-called by

Intervenors, testified that he would respond, that in his opinion evacuation of

the LPZ would be presently feasible, and that evacuation of future increased

population in the LPZ would also be possible due to increased manpower,

_ vehicles, and road facilities.2?° James D. Holt, Sheriff of Martin County, galled

by Intervenors, stated that his department would be able to assist and

accomplish evacuation of this area.°*® and Captain W.B. Oliver, Troop

Commander, Troop L, Florida Highway Patrol, also called by Intervenors,

testified to the same effect.*?”

74.In addition, in response to Board questions, the Staff testified that

projected population increases would not prevent effective evacuation of the

LPZ among current road conditions??* and that such Staff conclusions would

not be changed if one assumes and doubles Intervenor’s Witness Schmidt’s

population figures.?7° There is no evidence in the record to persuade the Board

to the contrary. Accordingly in view of the findings herein the Board concludes

that contentions 3.2 and 2.2(d) are without merit.

B. Site Suitability

75. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules relating to “Preconstruction permit

activities” published on April 24, 1974,7?° the parties presented testimony on

site suitability considerations identified in 10 CFR Part 100 of the Commission’s

regulations relating to health and safety issues. The criteria for site suitability are

population density; land use characteristics; acceptability as regards possible

7227, 1438.

223Tr 1538.

724Tr 1541-1556.

725Tr 1575-1583.

726Tr 1592-1599.

727 Tr. 1607-1609.

22°Tr 1512-1513.

229Tr 1514,

73°39 Fed. Reg. 14508

44b

conflict with existing military, industrial, or transport facilities; and physical

characteristics.

76. The proposed facility is located on the landward side of highway AlA

which passes directly through the site, approximately 1000 ft. east of the reactor

containment building The site is a 1132-acre tract located on Hutchinson Island

in St. Lucie County about 8 miles south of Ft. Pierce, Florida and 8 miles north

of Stuart, Florida. St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 1 is now being constructed on the

site under Construction Permit No. CPPR-74 issued by the AEC on July 1, i970.

The site evaluation was made for construction of a PWR reactor having a thermal

power rating of 256C megawatts thermal (851 megawatts, electrical).2?! Of the

1132 acres, approximately 300 acres will be used for both plant No. 1 and

proposed plant No. 2.7°? The site is generally flat, covered by vegetation

characteristic of Florida Coastal mangrove swamps. At the ocean side. the land

rises slightly in a dune which is generally continuous and ranges in elevation

from 8-14 ft. mlw.??* A description of the site is adequately given in the

FES.?°*

77. Applicant has raised the highway AIA grade level to about elevation

+18.3 ft. mlw. in front of the plant and has constructed bridges across the plant

intake and discharge canals for the highway.??* The foundation soils for safety

related structures consist of compacted fill raised to a grade level of +18.0 ft.

miw.?°° Foundations for all seismic Category I structures and the turbine

building within the plant island will be Class 1 fill. All other nonseismic

structures will be supported by Class JI so:

78. Population density and land usé characteristics were considered at length

in paragraphs 60-63 in connection with the resolution of the matters in

controversy, but are also valid for general site suitability considerations. In

addition, the Board notes that the Staff analyzed the Applicant's data presented

in the PSAR and used data from published reports of population projections by

the U.S. Department of Commerce, the 1970 census, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, a site visit, the U.$. Geological Survey, a visit to local officials, the

AEC publication “Population Distribution Around Nuclear Plant Sites” of

April 17, 1973, and telephone conversations with local officials, to prepare its

presentation in Section 2.2 of the FES.?** As stated above, the demographic

information presented in the Applicant's ER and PSAR and the Staff's FES was

7? "SER following Tr. 3344 acp. 1-1

232 FES p. 1 ,

29SER p. 2-21

72 “FES, Section 2.

235SER p. 2-21.

2 361d.

?>7 Applicant's Exhibit 2A, p. 2.5-39.

?** Testimony of Dr. Emile A. Bernard following Tr. 904.

45b

found to be inaccurate and was further amended and updated during the hearing

by the testimony of the witnesses for the Applicant??” and the Staff.2*°

79. In July 1974, prior to the evidentiary hearing, the Intervenor counsel

called the Staff's attention to discrepancies in population data given in the FES.

Staff then made a reevaluation of the population data.2*' The Staff became

aware of inaccuracies in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 in the FES during the course of the

hearing.2*? Apparently these inaccurate figures were not relied on by the Staff

in its calculations; however, the Statf submitted additional testimony which

corrected the FES.?*? Figures 2.5 and 2.6 are used to graphically display the

population data from the FES in sectors corresponding to compass points in

annular rings surrounding the plant site and have not been corrected to reflect

the: most recent data developed by the Staff.?** Applicant has likewise

presented additional information. in the form of a proposed amendment to the

ER which corrected Figure 2.2-1 thereof, with the most recent data developed

by Applicant.?** .

80. During examination by the Intervenor’s counsel, and after further Board

questioning, it became clear to the Board that the initial incorrect population

data presented in the FES was not the result of any intentional effort to mislead

or of negligent conduct on the part of the Staff. It apparently resulted from an

apparent oversight by Staff in compiling Applicant's data. These data were

corrected by the testimony of Dr. Bernard. The Board was persuaded that the

errors in Figs. 2.5 and 2.6 of the FES were inadvertent errors that arose during

the final editing stage of the FES. The Staff readily admitted the error, took

immediate steps to correct it during the proceedings, and responded to

crossexamination and Board questioning in a forthright, candid manner.

Accordingly the Board hereby modifies the FES by inserting therein corrected

Figures 2.5 and 2.67*° in substitution for those initially presented. In view

thereof and further in view of the findings in paragraphs 60-63, 78, and 79,

73°Testimony of Philip W. Moore relating to Contention 2.2(a) follows Tr. 764,

hereafter “Moore 2.2(a)". Testimony of Philip W. Moore relating to Board Questior

concerning Contention 2.2 follows Tr. 2967, hereafter “Moore 2.2.” :

74°Supplemental Testimony of AEC Regulatory Staff on changes to FES related to

population by Francis A. St. Mary follows Tr. 2353, Supplemental testimony of AEC

Regulatory Staff on Board questions related to demography by Dr. Emile A. Bernard, pp.

1-37.

7*'Tr. 1466.

7e2Te.. $487.

**9Tr. 1445, 2744: Supplemental testimony of AEC Regulatory Staff on changes to

FES related to population by Francis St. Mary, follows Tr. 2353

?**Testimony of Dr. Bernard following Tr. 2722, p. 2.

?*$ Testimony of P. W. Moore following Tr. 2967.

746 As contained in testimony of Witness St. Mary, see note 243, supra.

>

46b

above, the Board finds the site suitable as to the population density and land use

requirements of 10 CFR Part 100.

81. As to site suitability criteria relating to nearby transportation, industrial,

and military activities, the Board finds that the St. Lucie County airport, located

12 miles from the plant site;?*” the Stuart Airport, approximately 11 miles

from the site; and two smaller private airports, near Ft. Pierce and

approximately 10 miles from the site, do not service commercial airlines.?4*

The Flonda East Coast Ratiway and State Route 707 run along the west bank of

the Indian River approximately 2 miles trom the reactor building. The Indian

River is used as part of the intracoastal waterway. There are no military bases or

firing ranges, missile sites, manufacturing plants, chemical plants, or oil and gas

lines or tank farms within 5 miles of the site.?*% After review, the Staff

concluded that there are no nearby industrial, transportation, or military

facilities or activities which preclude acceptability of the site. Based on the

record, the Board agrees and finds the site suitable as to the transportation,

industrial, and military activity criteria of 1O CFR 100.

82. The physical characteristics of the site were considered in terms of

meteorology, geology and seismology, emergency plans, and hydrology. With

respect to meteorology, the Board notes that all meteorological contentions

were disposed of by summary disposition, except contention 2.1(b) treated in

paragraphs 52-59 above. In addition to considering the specific matter in

controversy, the Board must also determine whether there are any

meteorological characteristics in general which would preclude site suitability.

83. The Applicant initiated an onsite meteorological measurements program

in December 1970 and gathered data from this program for the time period

March 197] February 1972. The Staff used these data to independently

calculate relative concentration factors using the diffusion model described in

Regulatory Guide 1.4.7°° These relative concentration factors were then uscd,

along with appropriate release magnitudes, to calculate offsite accident doses for

comparison with the guideline values of 10 CFR 100.11. The calculations

demonstrated that additional Engineered Safety Features (ESF) would be

required to reduce calculated offsite doses to values below the guideline values

of 10 CFR Part 100 at a distance of one mile.?°' The Applicant is committed to

providing sufficient additional ESF’s to reduce calculated accident doses at a

distance of one mile to less than the guideline value specified by § 100.11 fora

Low Population Zone (LPZ) distance.?*? Independent calculations by the Staff

47 SER p. 2-13

aialed |

a

7*°SER pp. 2-14 to 2 20

¥ 25! vestimony of Calvin W. Moon following Tr. 3340, pp. 3-5

'*? Testimony of Frederick G. Flugger following Tr. 1310.

47b

showed that reduction of containment leak rate from 0.5 to 0.1 percent of

containment volume per day while maingaining the same fraction of unfiltered

release would enable the Applicant to achieve the required dose reduction.

84. Following such calculation, the Staff concluded (a) that it is feasible for

the Applicant to modify the facility design to achieve required dose reductions

using any of several combinations of ESF’s and/or containment test leak rate

reductions;?*? (b) that the onsite joint frequency meteorological data for the

period March 1971. February 1972 provided an acceptable basis to make

conservative and representative estimates of atmospheric dispersion

characteristics for accidental and routine gaseous releases from the plant.’ ** (c)

that to permit verification of the relative concentration values, the Applicant

must submit an additional one year period of data, with acceptable data

recovery, from a continuation of the meteorological measurement program, and

(d) that the Staff will require the onsite program to be upgraded to conform to

the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.23. The Board agrees with these

conclusions, finds the proposed procedure appropriate, and concluaes that,

based on Applicant's monitoring program and the Staffs review of procedures

and collected data and the findings of the Board in paragraph 59 above, there are

no meteorological conditions which would make the site unacceptable.

85. The site suitability characteristics relating to geology and seismology

have been considered in some detail relative to Contention 2.3 above. In

addition, the Applicant and Staff provided testimony generally as to the

geological and seismological characteristics of the site. The Applicant performed

various geologic investigations, including a detailed summary of published and

unpublished literature with geologic and structural maps and well log data.

contact with geologists familiar with the structures of the St. Lucie County area,

a study of various aerial and satellite photographs, and various types of field

work including borings and continuous seismic reflection profiling.” ** The Staff

reviewed the efforts, activities, and results of the Applicant's testing

programs.?°° In addition, the Staff reviewed and evaluated information from

the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey? *” and

contacted those individuals who had postulated that faulting may exist in the

site area.?** As to seismology, the Applicant undertook an adequate

25 Several other FSF's. such as chemical additives in the containment spray and

additional filtering of containment leakage, have been used in other facility deswns to

achieve reduction in offsite doses.

?S*SER 2.3.6.

755 Testimony of George F. Sowers following Tr. 1625

7S6SER 2.6.1. Testimony of Thomas ¢ ardone at Tr, 1674 1678

asta

5° Tr 1678.

48b

investigation to review the earthquake history of the site.25% including blow

count data and liquefaction potential.?°® The Staff reviewed Applicant’s

results.?°' historical earthquakes. and the structure and soil conditions of the

site and concluded that the earthquake history is adequately chronicled, that an

intensity of VI MM is conservative, acceptable, and feasible for the seismic

design of the facility, and that, while it was not possible to establish adequately

that liquefaction could not occur in the low blow count zone from the test data

alone, nevertheless, from past experience involving a number of critical

factors.?°? the Staff concluded that the site shows no potential for liquefaction.

In addition, structural engineering analysis performed by Applicant?" * and

reviewed by Staff?°* indicates that dynamic interaction between proposed Unit

No. 2 with Ufit No. 1 being constiucted will be no more than 5%.

86. Based on the evidence of record, the Board agrees with the findings of

the Staff as to the sud physical characteristics relating to geology and

seismology and concludes that the earthquake history is adequately

documented, that the setsmic design of intensity VI MM is adequate and

reasonable, that the site does not show potential for liquefaction, and that the

interaction between St. Lucie No. | and the proposed St. Lucie No. 2 will not be

more than 5°. Subject to the improvement of (Mindation conditions as required

by the Board in paragraph 68 above, the Board further concludes that there will

be no potential for blockage of the emergency cooling canal in the event of an

earthquake, even with extremely low tide. Thus, the Board concludes that the

site meets the requirements of 10 CFR 100.10 and Section I(r) of Appendix A

to L1OCFR Part 100.

87. As to emergency plans, the findings of the Board, above, in connection

with Contentions 2.2 and 3.2 are dispositive of issues related thereto. In

addition, the Board notes the description by the Applicant of his preliminary

plans for the possible evacuation of the low population zone as contained in

Section 13.3 of the PSAR. The Applicant has also entered into preliminary

arrangements with the State of Flonda, and the other officials of local, state,

and Federal offices for assistance in case of need for evacuation. The Staff has

concluded that the Applicant's plans for assigning duties and establishing

procedures to assure that the necessary resources are available and that the

necessary actions are taken to protect health and minimize danger to personnel,

limit damage. and establish control in the event of an emergency situation are

7** Testimony of George Sowers following Tr, 1625, pp. 7-9

7*°PSAR 25 4.8. Testimony of WOE. Mercuno (2 3g) follow ing Tr. 1625, p. 1-3

7** Testimony of Kernreuter followmg Tr. 1669, pp. 2-7

7? See Bernreuter, pp $7

*** Testimony of WOE) Mercurio (2 30h) following Tr. 1268. pp. 1-3.

*** Testimony of Robert Shewmaker following Tr. 1669. pp 1-4

49b

adequate.?°* In view of the entire evidence of record, the Board agrees and

concludes that the plans, statements, and commitments of the Applicant meet

the intent and requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix

E on evacuation planning at the construction permit stage.

88. The hydrological characteristics of the site were reviewed and considered

in some detail in connection with Contention 2.1(b). In addition, the Board

notes that potential plant site flooding may occur from intense rainfall or

overocean windstorms which induce surges. Applicant has provided acceptable

criteria for site drainage facilities to drain runoff away from safety-related

facilities during intense rainfall as severe as a local probable maximum storm and

criteria to be implemented during the construction of Unit 2 which will preclude

flooding of Unit 1 from locally intense precipitation up to and including the

severity of the local Probable Maximum Precipitation.?°° Intake cooling water

pumps are located on the plant intake structure on the landward side of the

plant and flood protected to 22 ft. above mean low water (mlw.).?°” These

pumps will be located outdoors and are designed to operate in 100% relative

humidity salt laden atmosphere during torrential rains and hurricanes.” °*

89. The flooding potential from severe hurricanes has been evaluated.

independently both by the Applicant and by the Staff, using a hypothetical

probable maximum hurricane (PMH).?°° The Staff calculated PMH storm

parameters and used them in conjunction with a recognized and commonly used

hurricane surge snodel developed by the Coastal Engineering Research Center,

Corps of Engineers.2”° The Staff thus calculated a surge level to be 16.7 ft.

above mlw.:27! the Applicant calculated a surge of 16.2 ft. mlw..?7? and the

Intervenor calculaied 15 MSL (translating to 16.3 ft. mlw.).27? For

conservatism, the Board adopted the Staff's calculation of 16.7 ft. In view of the

Staff calculation of +22 ft. mlw. for wave run-up, Applicant has agreed to

protect entrances of safety-related structures with stoplog closures to he erected

above the grade level of +18 ft. mlw. to an elevation of +22 ft. mlw.?7*

Applicant further agreed to provide for sandbagging and plastic sheeting to

minimize inleakage up to 22 ft. mlw., the maximum level of wave run-up, if the

7*S5SER Section 13.3.

oOChe a. Bae.

267 Testimony of Hulman, p. 11, following Tr. 1686.

7¢*®SER pp. 9-6, 7.

26° A PMI is a hypothetical hurricane having the combination of characteristics making

it the most severe that can probably occur at the proposed site.

77° Hulman, pp. $-7.

27" Hulman, p. 8.

272Ych., p. 2.

77 Sugg. p. |.

774PSAR. amendment No. 13, p.Q2.10(R)-2.

50b

Staff would require it.2’* and the Staff subsequently required these

measures.?7® Applicant also agreed to comply with a Staff request for the

construction of monolithic concrete paving approximately 200 ft. long, 8”

thick, from the top of the slope (+18 miw.) to plus S° mlw. to help prevent

erosion of the plant yard.?’”

90. As one of the hydrological factors affecting the suitability of site, the

Board considered the effect of a serious storm on the cooling system of the

plant: The ocean intake structures are designed to withstand the largest wave

that can be supported in the depth of water in which they are located ?77* The

ocean intake lines are buried at least 12 ft. below the ocean bottom in the surf

zone and 5 ft. below the bottom elsewhere, and this intake system is designed to

supply water from levels as low as about — 16° mlw., which is well below the

lowest ocean level reasonably possible at the site resulting from a PMH moving

offshore along a critical track coincident with astronomical Jow tide

conditions.?”° The Board finds that the safety function of the intake system

will not be threatened by the PMI. In addition, the Board finds that the

emergency canal is designed to remain functional, even if filled in asa result of

seismically induced liquefaction, which filling in exceeds that which can be

expected during a PMH.?*° Thus, the Board concludes that the emergency

cooling canal will remain functional during PMH conditions.

91. The primary ultimate heat sink system for the proposed plant consists of

a widened and deepened area at the end of the intake canal, along with the

Ocean intake structure. The intake cooling water pumps for this system are

located in the plant intake structure, flood protected to a level of 22 ft. mlw.

above the level of any PMH flooding. Big Mud Creek is the alternative source of

water. Flow from this backup source is normally blocked by a bulkhead

structure across a connecting channel from Big Mud Creek.2*!' The bulkhead

Structure is designed to include plugged holes which can be opened by remote

actuation to allow water to flow from Big Mud Creek when the water level at the

plant intake falls below that in Big Mud Creek.?2*? Low water conditions in

Indian River were evaluated independently by the Applicant and Staff to the

satisfaction of the Board.?"* The Board finds that the water supply from either

the ocean intake or the canal from Big Mud Creek is sufficient to permit the safe

a

77*SER p. 2-25

?7">PSAR Amendment No. 13, p. Q2.10(d)-4.

778 Testimony of John Fotheringham following Tr. 1839

77° Hulman, p. 1S.

78°L otheringham, p. 2.

2®'SER pp. 2-28 to 2.29: 9-8, 9-9.

28214

7®* Hulman, pp. 18. 17; SFR p. 2-29

S1b

shutdown of St. Lucie Unit .. and its maintenance in a safe shutdown condition,

and therefore the ultimate heat sink is acceptable from a hydrologic engineering

standpoint. Accordingly. and in view of paragraphs 88-90 above. the Board finds

that there are no hydrological factors that would preclude this site from being a

suitable location for nuclear power reactors of the general size and type

proposed for St. Lucie 2 plent under the criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 100.

92. Considering all the site suitability characteristics discussed in paragraphs

75-91 above, the Board concludes that the site is suitable for a nuclear power

reactor of the size and type proposed by the Applicant

C. Compliance with NEPA. Section 102(C) and (D),

and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50

93. In accordance with Appendix D to Part SO of the Commission’s

Regulations, Applicant submitted its Environmental Report (ER) dated May 14,

1972, and subsequent Amendments 1-5.2"°* Following docketing of | the

Applicant and ER on September 4, 1973. a Notice of Receipt for Construction

Permits and Facility Licenses and Applicant’s Environmental Report was duly

published.* **

94. Based upon information submitted by Applicant in the ER and upon its

own inde pendent review aud analysis, the Staff prepared a Draft Environmental

Statement (DES) which was issued on February 5, 1974. A Notice of

Availabtliiy of the DES was issued on February 5, 1974.2" and copies of the

DES, with requests for comment, were sent to appropriate federal. state, and

local agencies. The notice provided that interested persons may, on or before

April 1, 1974, submit comments on the ER and the DES for consideration by

the Commission. The notice further provided that Federal and state agencies

were being provided with copies of the ER and DES, and that, when any

comments from these agencies were received, they would be made available for

public inspection.

9§. After receipt and consideration of comments on the DES, the Staff

prepared and issued a Final Environmental Statement (FES)?*? which discusses

the environmental impact of the construction and operation of the facility. It

also presents (a) a detailed description of the site and the facility, with a

discussion of the impact of the site preparation, and a consideration of

transme sion tine construction; (b) the environmental effects of plant operation,

with a discussion of the envirenmental monitoring program, and an assessment

284A nohcant’s Bxhibits 44, B

2883N hed Reg 26483 September 21, 1973

79630 fed Reg, 4938, tebmary &. 1974

287 Stalt’s bxhibit S-1

52b

of the environmental effects of accidents: (c) a detailed evaluation of the

proposed action, including consideration of the need for power, (d} comments

on the adverse environmental etfects which cannot be avoided, including the

relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; (e) the irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources; (f) a review of alternative energy

sources, sites, and plant design alternatives; (g) a cost-benefit analysis: and (h)a

discussion of the comments received on the DES. The FES concludes, after

weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benel:ts of the

facility against environmental and other costs, and considerin; ivailable

alternatives, that the issuance of a construction permit for St. Lucie (mt No. 2.

made subject to certain conditions for the protection of the environment, would

comply with the provisions of NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part ‘0. Based

on the evidence of record. and subject to the conditions set forth ':cim., the

Board agrees.

Impacts of Construction

96. The primary impact on the site occurred with the construction of Unit

No. 1. This impact involved about 300 acres and resulted from approximately >

million yards of fill being placed ona previously damaged mangrove swamp. This

fill covered approximately 200 acres. In addition, «xcavation of the ‘ntake and

discharge canals between ocean and reactor changed an additional 1(:) acres to

waterways.’** The area of fill on which Unit No. 2 is to be located will be

excavated for foundations, associated dewatering of the excavatiens will be

carried out, and the area involved will be appreximately five acres. Water

extracted in this process will be directed to the int-Se or discharge ¢ »nals. The

Applicant assures that such discharges will meet vnrlicable State «' Florida

regulations for turbidity but that, if turbidity is a problem, this wat” will be

directed to a settling basin prior to discharge.?**

97. While all construction for the intake lines will be completed during

construction of Unit 1. installation of the discharge line for Unit 2wi involve a

recutting of the beach and dune and will destroy the native dune tdilizing

planis which the Applicant was required to establish following installa’ on of the

line for Unit 1. Thus, excavation of the duae provides an unusual opportunity

for wave action from a severe stom to cut through the island a:ul dune

stabilizing plants have been fully reestablished. While the Applian! plans a

temporary dune to provide partial protection to the ishind during th) tne the

dune is excavated. nevertheless normal protection will only be attvoed when

788EES Section 4.1

7099d.. FR p. 4.1-2.

53b

native plants reach maturity with their network of roots acuing as a deterrent to

cutting. The Board agrees and adopts the Staff's recommendation set forth at p.

“v" of the FES to replant the dune as soon as possible after excavation with

dune stabilizing plants indigenous??® to the area, and hereby makes it a

condition to any authorization for construction issued pursuant to this decision.

98.The Applicant has committed itself to permitting unrestricted public

access for recreational purposes consistent with health and safety and plant

protection conditions. Such use should not be significantly affected beyond that

brought about by the conduct and operation of Unit No. |, except that the

ocean beach in the vicinity of the discharge may be limited during the time of

discharge line installation.2°' Construction and placement of the ocean

discharge line will temporarily impede nearshore boat traffic. However,

significant impact on recreational water use is not anticipated. General

construction activities in the ocean will create small scale turbidity currents as

well as temporarily interrupt the natural littoral processes.??? Restrictions

requiring turbidity not to exceed fifty (SO) Jackson units will be imposed by thé

Florida State Water Quality Standards.2°* The Board agrees as to the Staff's

conclusion that no significant impact on water use is envisaged.” °* In addition,

since there will be no additional transmission rights-of-way required for Unit

No. 2, beyond that required for Unit No. | there will be no additional effect on

agriculture or water producing savanna lands in the surrounding areas.” °°

99. The possible dis:uption of turtle nesting at the site is an important factor

considered by the parties and the Board. Additional construction activities on

the beach and dune will cause another period of disruption to turtle nesting in

the area.?°® To assist in minimizing such disruption, the Applicant has

committed itself to a daily nest identification and relocation program in the

affected area during the turtle nesting season.??” Moreover, plant lighting could

cause misorientation of turtle hatchings with resulting increased mortalities.

Therefore, during Unit No. 1 construction, the Applicant was required to plant

Australian pine or other suitable plants as necessary behind the dune to provide

a light shield for the beach and dune area. If this light screen is disturbed for

Unit No. 2 construction, the Applicant has committed to replant pines as soon

as possible.2?* This would be in addition to the planting of dune stabilizing

79ORTES Section 4.1.

299 EES Section 4.2

29244

died |

5eegg.

29STES 4.1.

29ORES 4.3.1.

MTR PD 414d

29RD. 4d.

54b

plants.?°? Also, in an effort to minimize the amount of predation on turtle

nests, the Applicant has committed to a program to control all edible refuse

during plant construction and operation to limit the raccoon population, to

include procedures to prevent deliberate feeding of raccoons in the area by

construction and operating personnel.*°°

100. Approximately three-fourths (about 830 acres) of the site will remain

essentially in its preconstruction state. As the remainder of the island becomes

developed for human use, this substantial acreage may serve as a sanctuary for

species which would otherwise be evicted from the island.?°' Increased

commercial development of the island appears inevitable and will probably have

a more serious effect on the terrestrial biota than the construction activity. The

Board believes the potential of the site as a wildlife sanctuary to be favorable

and requires the Applicant to recommend further actions towards this end, as

well as to carry out its commitments. Effects on aquatic organisms will occur

from construction of a second discharge line with a multiport diffuser planned

for Unit No. 2 which will extend into the ocean beyond the discharge for Unit

No. 1. Construction of this discharge line will involve dredging a channel 20-ft.

deep about 2800 ft. into the ocean. Some 17,600 m? (4.3 acres) of bottom area

will be dredged and 82.000 m* (107,000 yd?) of material will be removed.

Protection by sheet piling and onshore disposal of spoil should reduce the effect

of siltation on aquatic ecosystems to an insignificant level.?°? Organisms

dredged up will be lost. The Applicant calculates that these will number some 16

million polycheates, bivalves, echinoderms, amphipods, and decapods.*°? This

number appears to be a very small portion of the total population of these

Organisms in the area, and repopulation of benthic communities so disturbed is

expected within about a year’s time. No species of commercial importance are

included in the benthic fauna in the area to be dredged, and the Staff expects no

significant long term or population effect on the aquatic ecosystems to result

from dredging activities associated with the construction of the discharge

line.*°* Based on the evidence of record, the Board agrees.

101. For several years the condenser cooling system will be in use with only

Unit No. | operating. This means the approach velocity at the intake structures

will only be about 0.5 fps, which is below that normally desirable to provide a

warning signal to fishes to avoid the area, thus increased entrapment in the

intake canal may result. The Staff has suggested that the extent of actual fish

2991-5 S 4.3.1

2°OR ES 4.3.1,4.5.107).

3°! FES 4.3.1

eo4 +E S'4.3.7.

OER 41-6.

®°SFES 4.3.2.

55b

entrapment in the canal be carefully monitored, and that, if it becomes a

problem, action be taken to increase the intake velocity to about 1 fps.?°5 The

Board agrees and adopts this recommendation as set forth at FES 4.5.2(2) asa

condition to any authorization for construction issued pursuant to this Initial

Decision.

102. Insufficient entrainment and dilution by the ambient water due to low

exit velocity may occur if only Unit No. | is operating, because only half the

normal flow of heated water will be going out both discharge lines. Thus

maximum surface temperatures of 7.4°F and 2°F above ambient are predicted

under these conditions for the Unit No.1 and Unit No. 2 discharge points,

respectively.°°* The Staff recommends use of the Unit No.2 multiport

discharge line as soon as it becomes available. The Staff further recommends that

when only one unit is operating, then the multiport discharge line be

utilized.2°”’ The Board agrees and adopts this recommendation as set forth in

FES 4.5.2 and page “v'(7Xc) as a condition te any authorization for

construction issued pursuant to this Initial Decision.

103. Dewatering of the construction site will be effected in conformance

with State of Florida Water Quality Standards.?°* Also, chemicals used during

construction and startup will be neutralized to meet state water quality

standards. Accordingly the Board concludes that there will be no significant

effect from discharge of waters or chemicals meeting the state standards. In

addition, noise and dust, and release of combustion products to the atmosphere,

from construction equipment are not expected to have any appreciable impact

on the residents of the area who live over 1.5 miles away from the site.?°®

Impact of Operation

104. Most of the operating impacts on land use will have occurred with the

installation and operation of Unit 1, and Unit 2 ts expected to have little

additional impact.?'® The major aesthetic impact also occurred with the

installation of Unit 1. The three transmission lines across Indian River are the

most readily visible feature of the plant. but these have already been considered

and evaluated in connection with Unit No.1. No additional lines will be

necessary for Unit No. 2. The reactor and turbine buildings can be seen by

residents of the area, and, with proposed Unit No. 2 being added, this visual

impact will be increased. This factor was considered by the Board in its

2OSig

SOORES 3.4.2:43.2

997 FES 4.3.2,4.5.203)

2°FER 41-2

OFEES 44.

SPORES Sh.

56b

evaluation. The Board also concludes that the overall effect on the terrestrial

biota of adding Unit No. 2 to the site will be insignificant.?''

105. There is no direct use of groundwaters at the site because no fresh

groundwater has been found on Hutchinson Island. Subsurface waters will

receive inflows from plant waste waters discharged to the sanitary treatment

system and the settling basins. In view of the relatively small labor force to be

used for operation, the Board sees little significant contaminatior of

groundwaters from these sources. However, the Applicant has committed itself

to connect with the municipal sewage treatment facilities as soon as. the sewer

line is brought within approximately 5 miles of the plant.

106. The: plant will utilize water from Big Mud Creek for the emergency

cooling system. The Board agrees that no significant impact on the water use of

Big Mud Creek is envisioned, provided that the total volume of water drawn does

not exceed 4 million gallons per year,’'? and hereby makes this a condition to

any authorization for construction issued pursuant to this Initial Decision.

107. Chlorine gas will be utilized for biological defouling of the condenser

cooling system at a rate which will provide a concentration of 5 ppm entering

the condenser for 15 min. each day. The biocide will be controlled so the

chlorine content of the circulating water leaving the condenser will contain a

maximum free residual of 1.5 ppm. This will be diluted by a factor of 8 in the

discharge canal when the circulating pumps for both Units No. | and No. 2 are

operating. An operating license condition established for Unit No. | provides

that concentrations of total residual chlorine be monitored at the ocean

discharge to verify the removal of chlorine in the discharge. The Staff has also

suggested that chlorine residuals, such as monochloramine and trichloramine

should be measured to ensure a complete description of the total chlorine

residual.?'? The Board adcpts the recommendations for monitoring of chlorine

and chlorine residuals provided for Unit No. | and makes them a requirement

for Unit No. 2. Other chemical releases will not have a measurable impact on the

use of adjacent waters nor on the biota therein.?'* Subject to the conditions

above, the Board finds that chemical discharges from Unit No. 2 will not result

in a significant adverse impact.

108. The actual thermal plumes in the vicinity of the Unit No. 2 discharge

will be highly variable as a result of wave action, reversing longshore currents and

the plume interaction from the two discharge lines. Heated water from the

discharges can be carried by currents to the intake and thus recirculated to the

$9 35E3:3.3.1

S82EFS $.2.2

w° FES 5.23

3'41q

57b

plant.*'* There is also a possibility of thermal buildups because of the

orientation of Unit No. | discharge and its proximity to the Unit No. 2 discharge

system. A buildup from the Unit No. 1 plume could increase the background

Ocean iemperature in the vicinity of the Unit No. 2 discharge and effectively

reduce the effectiveness of the diffuser system. Thus some question exists

regarding whether or not the combined plume from both units will meet the

NPDES surface temperature rise limits of 1.5°F.2'® Because of these

uncertainties in the FES and taking note of comments made by the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce?!” that

recirculation and the increased size of the thermal plume could have indirect

effects upon the biota, the Board submitted written questions with respect to

thermal discharges.?'* Testimony of Witness Shashidhara emphasized the

conservatism of the modeling process he had used in calculation of the near field

effects.*'® However, from his testimony it was not clear to the Board whether

or not his modeling processes had taken into consideration circumstances under

which tidal fluctuation would provide dilution but also would spread the plume

over a wide area allowing interaction between the discharge and intake units.? 2°

The Applicant and Staff relied chiefly upon a mathematical analysis presented in

the FES for Unit No. 1°?! which was checked against available physical-

hydraulic models. This, however, may not be entirely appropriate for conditions

at the discharge site.*?* Although the Applicant has sponsored a comprehensive

physical-hydraulic model study at the University of lowa,*?* results from such a

model were not available at the evidentiary hearing.**4

109. Staff Witness Baca’s testimony also stressed the belief that there was

conservatism in the Applicant’s model of circulation. The basis for this belief

was past experience in other situations in which these techniques were used in

predicting isotherm distribution.*? * However, Witness Baca acknowledged that

there would be values to be derived from conducting postoperational monitoring

of the Unit No.1 plume to determine if the predictions of plume size are

correct. to see if the plume meets federal and state standards, and in general to

verify the assessment made of thermal conditions. Witness Baca recommended

SF 9¢bS $.2.3. 9. 5-3

"SES 5.2.3.1. p. $-4

39781S$ 11.4.1. and 11.4.2

oe? Appendix B

399 Tostimony of Nagalipur Shashidhara follow ing Tr 176%

3294; 2444. UGE TES IL-4. p 11-12

52987 § 10.4.1.

32214

22314

324Tr, 2945

neeet. 2965

58b

such monitoring to the Board.*?° During cross-examination, Witness Baca

recommended infrared mapping of the thermal field from an aireratt scanning

device.4?” The Board hereby requires, as a condition to any license issuing from

this Dectsion, that monitoring of the thermal field as recommended by Witness

Baca’?* be undertaken after Unit No. | is operational. Such monitoring will be

undertaken at such times and under such conditions of tide, meteorology, and

current that maximum recirculation and maximum buildup of heated effluent

would be predicted from interactions between the two discharge plumes and

between the two discharge plumes and the intake.

110. The Board also recognizes that the combined plume of Unit No. | and

Unit No. 2 may have a significant effect on sea turtles coming into the plume;

however, facts gathered to date do not show this. Special studies on thermal

effects on sea turtles were required as a condition to Unit No. 1. Applicant

conducted surveys during nesting seasons of 1971 and 1973.3?° After review,

the Staff concluded that the probable impact of plant operation on sea turtles

would be acceptable.'*° The Board agrees but hereby requires as a condition to

any license issued pursuant to this Initial Decision that turtle nest surveys

continue to be conducted to determine changes in nesting patterns which might

be indicative of plant related effects and that the results of such surveys be

delivered to the Staff and published promptly.

111.Some fish and planktonic organisms will be entrained in the ocean

intake system. Fish will be trapped in the intake canal with no mechanism for

return to the ocean. Most planktonic organisms will eventually be killed by

thermal shock as they pass through the condenser. [lowever, the numbers will be

small and the impact on the ecosystem is expected to be minor.*?!

linpingement losses are expected to be of minor significance because (1) the

velocity caps at the ocean intake are expected to minimize the numbers of fishes

entering the intake svstem, and (2) very few large invertebrates such as crabs

have been reported in the offshore waters near the intake and, hecause the

intake is raised above the bottom, few of these are expected to enter the canal

system ‘'? Fish eggs and larvae will be subject to passage through the plant

condenser system. While these have not been identified, the waters off

Hutchinson Island are not thought to be important spawning or nursery areas for

species of commercial importance. The Staff has concluded that entrained eggs

SFA te DR

127 Pr, 2956, (29552956).

dled

2° Nancy W. Walls, p. I *

SaOEES 5:55.26

7 AEDES §:5:2:%

‘S'S. 2-2.

59b

and larvae will be from a general population rather than a local one and will be

only a small fraction of the numbers passing the area. Accordingly the Staff sees

no measurable effect on the local oceanic ecosystem from their passage through

the plant.??? The Board agrees and so finds. In its evaluation the Board also

recognized that during discharge of warm water from the plant, planktonic

organisms in the ocean will be mixed in varying proportions into the discharge

plume and its thermal and chemical content. As the plume mixes with ambient

ocean water, both the incremental temperature and the concentrations of

chemicals will rapidly increase. While chlorine residuals will likely not be

measurable, the combined effects of heat and chemical forms may have some

detrimental effect on phyto-plankters entrained into the plume; however, as the

exposure time will be short and the concentrations will be decreasing, mortalities

to plankters should not result in a measurable change in the population of

organisms in the local ecosystem.*** The Board concludes that, based on the

evidence of record, the overall additional impact of Unit No. 2 with respect to

thermal and chemical discharges will be minor and relatively insignificant.

112. The Board heard considerable testimony on possible radiological impact

as set forth in paragraphs 13 through 31, above. While the Applicant and Staff

calculations agreed that the facility releases are ‘“‘as low as practicable”,

Dr. Morgan questioned the calculations because of what he thought were wide

disparities in the 1-131 releases.?>*>* However, the Board notes that it was only

portions of the I-131 source term which were in disagreement (only a minor part

of the I-131 releases) and that such differences were adequately explained by the

assumptions used in the calculations.??° Since the total source terms for 1-131

as calculated by the Applicant and Staff were reasonably close,??” and since it is

the total source term from which doses were calculated,*** the Board finds the

differences cited would not amount to error significantly affecting “as low as

practicable” criteria. Dr. Morgan also noted that carbon-14 was improperly

omitted from source term Table 3.3 for liquid releases. However, in considering

the matter, the Board concludes that while this may have been the case,

nevertheless it is a harmless omission since Dr. Morgan also agreed that the C-14

dose would not exceed the Staff's “as low as practicable” guidelines.?*®

Dr. Morgan questioned the accuracy of FES Table 3.3 because it seemed to

exclude radionuclides on the basis of concentration rather than biological

*S3FES 5.3.2.3.

So*PES 5.5.2.5.

°9$ Testimony of Dr. W. Morgan; Tr. 2885. sce paragraph 18, supra

936FES 3-29.

*o73y. 3063.

33®Tr. 3063-64.

23°Tr 3116.

60b

risk?4° and because certain actinide isotopes did not appear in this table.3*' As

to the first point, Staff testified that the selection of the concentration level

used was on the basis of a generic evaluation which took into account the

biological risks associated with individual radionuclides and such that the most

critical isotopes, if present at that concentration, would produce negligible doses

to individuals and populations.**? As to the actinide isotopes, ihe Staff testified

that they were considered but that their releases were far below the 5 x 10°

curies per year cutoff.°*? Dr. Morgan agreed that the dose from these isotopes

would not exceed | mrem/year.?** Accordingly, the Board concludes that

Staff's review of the release and dose calcuiations is adequate and that the

St. Lucie 2 facility will meet the “as low as practicable” criteria and that any

cost factor resulting from genetic and somatic effects on the population or any

identified segment of it is slight and would not appreciably affect the

cost-benefit balance in favor of construction. The Board was impressed by the

thoughtful and expert manner in which Dr. Morgan assisted in developing the

record. In essence, Dr. Morgan's testimony was that while the cost-benefit

balance favored the construction of St. Lucie 2, there were certain actions that

could be taken to minimize the costs and optimize the benefits. However, the

suggestions of Dr.Morgan contemplate revision of the Commission’s

Regulations, and as such are outside of the jurisdiction of this Board.

Nevertheless, it appears to the Board, on the basis of the record to date, that

Dr.Morgan’s opinion on the need for updating the calculations and

methodology used by the Staff with respect to the ‘tas low as practicable”

guidelines and his opinion on the use of the “dose commitment” concept are of

such importance as to require further development of the record. Such

development will be undertaken during the course of the health and safety

hearings so that the Board may determine if need exists for the referral of these

matters to the Commission.

113. The Applicants have submitted a proposed preoperational and

operational environmental monitoring program which has been reviewed by the

Staff and approved subject to a number of conditions and recommendations.° 4 $

The- Board adopts these recommendations herein as a condition of any

authorization for construction issued pursuant to this Initial Decision.

114. The Board reviewed the need for power and the forecasting

methodology used by Applicant in connection with Contention 1.3 above. Based

349 Tr RR7, 3150-51.

94° Te, 3179,

*42 Tr 3210-3211, 3228-3235

*49Tr 3216-3221

9441r V1R6.

3*SEES Section 6.1.

61b

on the record addressed, the Board is convinced that the growth rate predicted

for Florida and the Applicant's service area is reasonable, that Florida will

continue to grow at a faster rate than the nation as a whole, that the demand for

electric power will likewise increase, that sufficient power is not available from

outside the Applicant’s system, and that the need for the St. Lucie Unit No. 2

has been adequately demonstrated.

Alternatives to St. Lucie 2

115. The Staff considered the construction of an equivalent fossil fuel power

plant at the Hutchinson Island site.*4° Oil has been the major fuel used for

electric power generation in Florida; coal has not been a major fuel source

because of long distances to sources of supply and high shipping costs. The

volume of solid and gaseous waste products produced by fossil fuel units,

especially coal, can be a significant environmental problem. In addition,

environmental impacts result from the delivery and storage of fossil fuels. Oil or

coal plants require several barge shipments per week, and with oil there is the

attendant risk of spills.?*7 Oil is also objectionable because of uncertainty of

supply and increasing cost.2** The Board also agrees with the Staff that

conversion of the present plant to a fossil facility is feasible but involves large

cost penalties with no significant net improvement in environmental impact. A

fossil plant would produce less waste heat (although the environmental effects of

heat from the proposed nuclear facility are considered insignificant) but

substantial solid waste products. Based on the evidence of record, the Board

concludes that nuclear fuel is the best alternative.

116. The Staff considered the installation of nuclear facilities at another

site.>4° Other coastal sites showed no significant advantages; inland sites showed

higher ecological and construction costs.?*° As noted in greater detail above, a

decision not to construct the plant will result in inadequate reserves for the

Applicant’s system after 1979, with increasing risk of load curtailments.

Sufficient power is not available from deferred retirement of existing units or

from outside the Applicant's system.**' Accordingly the Board finds that the

selection of the St. Lucie site results in a lower economic and ecological cost and

earlier provision of the needed power. Since other sites do not appear to have a

potential for a significantly lower environmental impact, the St. Lucie site, with

veeres 4:3.

947 FES 9.1.3.

34* Tr 691-693.

34° FES 9.1.2 and Table 9.1.

380g

7S FES 9.1.1.

62b

the major environmental costs already absorbed by reason of St. Lucie |, would

appear to be the best site available for St. Lucie 2.

117. The Board has discussed alternatives relating to ultimate heat sink

methods in connection with Contention 1.6 above. In addition, the Board notes

that the Staff examined alternatives to the proposed cooling system, including

ponds or canals, dry cooling towers, and natural and mechanical draft saltwater

cooling towers and did not find them acceptable alternatives.2*? Sufficient

surface area does not exist for ponds. Dry cooling towers have not been

developed in a size capable of meeting the cooling needs of the proposed

plant,?** and natural and mechanical draft saltwater cooling towers would

result in significant environmental impact from noise, salt carryover, drift, and

size.’** The Board has: considered the alternatives presented and agrees

therewith as augmented and modified by the Board as set forth in paragraph S51

above to incorporate in the FES the testimony offered in connection with

Contention 1.6. In view of the record, including the said modification of the

FES, the Board

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.