ML18347A767

Midland Nuclear Plants - Letter from Myron Cherry Who Was Concerned That He Did Not Receive Copies of Documents Related to Palisades & Midland

ML18347A767
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades, Midland
Issue date:	03/12/1975
From:	Cherry M Law Offices of M M Cherry
To:	Anders W NRC/Chairman
References
Download: ML18347A767 (18)

Text

r*-

HQ200a

("11-7~*

r;".... ~--...,....c.M'.o\\.......... ~"""'~*-... -"01---........V~,,.--."""'"--:::.>"~.--.:l,,~..... -~~cY~~*""1,

.. ~~~N:;i~

I.

No. _1_5_::.-2 4 O 8

._;'iRC LoG c 11\\1 G oA TE M 11 r..cJL_U_"-_1_9 7 S__ )

tt*!:.:?:.*,..;.,,.,...--;;;-'\\

.. ~;,

.. :~>-<11.~1~'r~rr;o.A,.... t.J t'\\ "~'n"'q ~~0."u,.......

~?..,..._;.;.!r**~.....

~::::-=-~~,r;...*t(

• .. ~J*u lj ti,

"~j/{.' !

1

~}-:;r.,:~.f:~~~--'

\\'...01~~ ~d~i t\\~~ f t.f*'--~I l

~ ;.,....~

~

g TO: 0 COivlMISSIOf\\l:::R DATE: 3/ l 7 / 7 5

~

i 0 GEN. MANAGER

}Ui GEN. COUNSEL 0

INFO. SERVICES

~

~

q DIH. REGULATION

0. PLAN. & ArllAL.

0 SECRETARY

~

~

~f;~~

• ~:

~-__,.::.-..a~>Ut**~t:*~,...o!<"'"~*~;t;..o..:(.._6,,_~..,.,.....:.......,,_,...,,....,;-:ri..,_,,.,,_~,,...~*.... ---..s..~"'...--;;...b'>u-u.s;.µo~'"o!C!'~.a.<:INC":T:R"..i>~

1 1NcoM1NG FRorvi:

f 1ivron M.

Che~r~r-+-----~-------

---

* _ _Q1i_e-1JHL21Jl.LQ._

__G.bic.. iLfJ.S.L...__l]_L,_.JiD.~6~* J~l~--

DATE: --3.J_L~---*-1.a...:_ __ Cluli... rJI!.a.n.-1ln..d..e~L) ___

SUBJECT:

_ _fJll_~~rL:t.hQJ;_J] e_ cl *j d 11 0 t rec e_.i:L~_i;_i.S rti.._ cl o r: 11 in ~Ll_n___E

... aJ i s ad e s 8i M idl..?.;.ILd l=X PREP;.\\RE REPLY FOR SIGNATURE Or:

.. l6J CHAIRMAN 0

COMMISSIONER 0

GM, DR, GC, P;.\\, IS, SECY 0

SIGfllATURE 8LOCK OMITTED JO\\

PLEASE RETURN ORIGINAL WITH RESPONSE 0

FOR DIRECT REPLY 0

SEi'JD COPY OF REPLY TO:

D sEcYMAILFAc1u1v(3/

Suspense Date:

0 CHAIRMAN 0

COiVIMISSIONERS 0

SECRETARY

[J FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION 0

FOR H*JFORMATION 0

FOR RECOMMENDATION 3/26/75 REMJ.>.R1<s:

C v of in c.Qm.irrn to Ch a i rrnCJ.n_fluldgj:~.e_g_c h Comm i s s *i _one r, Exe c.,

D i r. f o_r___Qp e rat i o n s L D&SS

---

~---------~-i~....,,.., ---------

FOR THE COMMiSSION:_____

,L/1....C..tr"....A\\ -~*---

'r),-, 1'> -,. f

---

~

() j () !

WHEN SE?ARATED FHOM ENCLOSURES I.

HANDLE THIS DOCUiV;E~JT AS GPO 870-868 ACTION SUP

LAW OFFICES MYRON M.CHERRY ONE IBM ?LAZA CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60611

~r.. -

I

r.

i u.

l i **'

i*.:*.

(3121 565-1177 0

.. - i 1 :- i * : '-*.. ~

! * 'j.

~ '

I Mr. William A. Anders Chairman

/

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission Washington, D. d.

20555

Dear Mr. Chairmln:

I March 12,-1975 On March 11, 1975 I received (by accident) a copy of a letter dated March 4, 1975 which you sent to the members of the Michigan Public Service Conu.l1.ission, apparently in response to the Michigan PSC 1 s November 8, 1974 letter to the Chairman of the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission.

Your March 4, 1975 letter deals with two cases in which I am involved, Palisades and Midland.

I have not been aoprised of your letter, nor did you or any of your* staff send me-a copy.

Additionally, your letter enclosed certain information prepared by the Regulatory Staff (one of the parties to the former pro-ceedings) and certain other documents (OOE-08*

0 002, May, 1974 and OOE-ES-001, January, 1974).

I did not receive any of these documents.

I also find it interesting to note that while your staff sent to the Michigan PSC certain "general studies regarding nuclear power plant availability and capacity factors, 11 the staff's enclosures indicated that those were dated May, 1974

• and January, 1974.

Your staff did not enclose the. December 2, 1974 study by Dr. Edwin G. Triner of the Office of Policy Planning for the Nuclear Regulatory Corrunission which study supports the criticism that has been made about nuclear power plant capacity

-- that it is appallingly low and results in increased costs to consumers.

Dr. Triner's study (which I have not received and here*wi th request) was, as usual, recorded in the news media (Sunday New York Times, March 9, 1975, Midwest Edition, p. 42) and disclosed as a result of efforts of criticism of the Nuclear Regulatory Cornrnission and not by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself.

The question certainly arises as to whether your staff conveniently failed to submit to the.Michigan PSC an NRC-in-house re.port critical to the nuclear combine.

I trust you will correct the record as quickly as possible with the Michigan PSC and suggest that you consider sending the Triner report to all PSC's

...,...... \\_}

• ,~~; \\_) t: (.

Page Two Mr. William A. Anders March 12, 1975 throughout the United States so that state bodies realize the economic problem which can arise from jumping into nuclear power without adequate foundation or economic base~

Finally, I am making a request for ~ copy of your March 1975 letter together with all of the enclosures and I am asking that in the future, when you corru"'lmnica te with anyone in connection with matters in *which I and my clients have filed an appearance, that I promptly be served with copies.

While I am prepared to regard the failure to send me the March 4, 1975 letter and enclosures as bureaucratic oversight, I do believe that in the future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should take care to see that all interested persons receive copies of correspondence in a contested case.

Sinc'erely,

(

.\\ I... r I /

I f

I

-~

/~ /.r --i""'-__

/I !

' *1

J f

I

,; /1* l-/ 1---~1 I I

... r '

I.

• Myro_+/-.1: M., Cherry *

/

/.

MMC:KK

• c.c.

Commissioner William R.. Ralls

. Comrnissioner Lenton G. Scul thorp Chairman William G. Rosenberg Michigan Public Service Commission Enclosure (New York Times arti6le referred to on page 1)

I L -

l 9 eaera1 ;:;11ray ~11arges Lzi~tle. (:'oncerry. '*u By UtiliHes_in R;:_liability o,f ~e~Ct?ts J By DAVID BlJll.N!IAJ\\l

. J.......

vu...

!- v\\.11.,\\..1..1u11* C 11g1nccrs Ins part of the reactor design

, 1 group. He said that a limited

. investigation indicated that bt.'-

cause or the all-inclusiveness.

or its responsibility for design,

• construction and

• operation,

• • Duke "is more concerned with questions of reliability ihan most other utilities."

• WAS!l!NGTON Mn*rch 8-A Concerning the *role of the Frdl'ral study h~~ conclndr.d I "Probably" one of the most

• state' utility commissions, the that the utilitie.s that own most lscriou's issues that the i_nterven- '

official said that besides having American nu.clear reactors-1 ors.ca;i raise today, wi.th good virtually no in£luent:e on the lstat18tics to* back their ca5e, design of reactors, "to my WhH:h have recently "be.en gen-is tha:t nuclear plants have not knowledge the appointment of era ting only about 5;:i ~er cent performed. with the degree of*

individuals to these commis-of their power capacity-are I reliabilit)' we would expect sions is not nonnally based not sufficiently concerned/ from machineg built with the

.upon their ~echnical knowledge about the s.afety and pcrform-11care a~d.a.ttcnllon t~ saf,ety, I

.., Costs a Factor

• of the design and operations A

a nee of their reactors.

1

• and re!lab1hty that. o.t en.1as

• I of a power plant."

W The stucty further char.r:cs: fbcen claimed for nucl~:n '

He said that a second factor,

He added that another prob-that the state commissions tllM Ii plants." Dr.

~asn:ussen W?._s \\was the reluctance of !he u,tili-1 !em was that '.'in al) too many are supposed to regulate t11('

1

.,quotC'd as say111g

~n an *Ap.nl Lies to incur extra design costs instances the quantity and quaJ.

utilit.ies have '.'little or no in-rqiort by the Atomic I.ndust'.1al i 1 durin(T the early stages of a ity of staff assigned* to this fluence" on the design proc1's~ I Forum. an industry l.ohbyrng !

nucle~r reactor building project function

[nuclear reactors]

thaL could make reuctors mc>r1:j I group supported by n.1~1.1:-ir rcac* I which would require them to within the states ls

• in,ade-reli~hle and efficient.

I:

I tor builders, the ut11IL1es and

• ncr:crate additional capital.

quat.e."

The: nnalvsis of reactor rl*lia-

• 1cnt~ine<'rs.

I 0

"There' !s no inecntivc for Thr person who has puhlic!y bililv and \\vhat steps the Fed-Dr. Trincr's five-page analy-them to make a 'total life cycle rai~<'d the most persist<'nt ques-eral-Government sho1ild 1akl'

i~ of rt'ador reliabili

ty, dat<'d cost analysis that-includes both tions about the rc.liahilily of to irnprov*c it was written I*~* llJr:c. 2, I!J74 w;i~ made availa"I drsign *a'ncl construction cost rc*actors is Davie!

Dinsmore

. Edwin G. Triner,. director. o: I b.lc b~*. tl~c* N:1clear Regulatory I and t~1e 30 or 40 years of Corney, a member of the Chica-

. I the* Office of Policy Planning,/ Commisswn 111 !esponse to a 1 operating

~nd maintenance.

1 go-based Business and Profes-

~n. th.e Nuclear J~egulatory Com-11 r~quest by Daniel. Ford,

~taff I* cost," Dr.. T.nner.wrole.

. sional People for the Public m1ss1on.

• d1rcc.tor of the Union of Con-The official. said anothe_r part I Tntercst. Jn a statement last Dr. Trin.er ~aid the utllil_il's, I c~irned Scientists, an o;-winiza-1*: of th~ problem w_as that the' Septci;nher,

• Mr.

Comcy said in theory, should have pnrnc J t 1011 that has been en ti cal of "architecture eng!ncern. who /that the a"!erage capacity of responsibility for nrnkinr, z;u:-<'

• atnmic J)(!wcr.

are largely rc.spons1ble fpr po~v-the large nuclear reactors was I th~I the reactors thCj'. buy nn1 Dr. :rnncr's study described er P.lant design.have _hltle :n- / 50.'f per cent during 'the first :

both 1;afe nnd efficient.

a number of factors that he centJve to consider mcrea~cd' six months of Hl74.

'The reality, however, l~ Lhnt felt contributed to the reliabili*,

reliability d~1ri_ng the design*

without external suasion tht~ ty prnblem.

.. : /- process. Then* mte~est ls short

~

likelihood f th~ utility custom" I "By--and._Jarge:--~he ut;~it1es I term. Once a J))ant is cons_truct-er. taking

<:g~.12s:siv.e. ~ctio.n are. ~ot tha~ sop~.ist1cale~. the.

1 cd, the arch1tc~ture ~.ngmeers to improve plant reliability n ! i official said.

rhere 1s no fade out of the picture..

not very great," he said.

: evidence, for example, that There lire 55 mi clear p1ry.n I~\\ !I I.hey have. c~r:tractually im-operating in the United State': posrcl rchab1ltt,v standards that generate about 7.5. per;! upon their architec~-.e~gineers.

cent of the country's electricity. I, Very few of 1he u_t1ltt1es exer-Bc-ca11se.or va:*ious prohlcms Ii cisc *very much. mfluence at

. in 1 Ile cont.i nui ng supply or I i ~ 11_ over the.cl c~1.r.;n,prclcess us

• oil :incl natural gas, *the Ford/ 11t rmpacts rchabil1ty.

• !Administration is commiHed t.o 1*

buildin~ hundreds of ndditional 1 rra, tors in the nex: 10. years. I

• Comment o~ Rcltabll1ty Norman *c.

Rasrnus~cn, *a 1.

profr.ssnr or nuclear cngincer* 1 :

~

rng at. Massacht1:*et.ts Insti.lute

• of Technulo;~y who is the <!tree*

• tor of a mafor Atomic Energy I

• Commission study on reactor safety, commented on the rclia-1 h1li Ly issue at an industry con-t I'\\

)""'""I

~

. March 19, 19 75

. DISTRIBUTION Docket No. 50-255 Mre James Kellogg Deputy Director Docket File NRC PDR.

NRR Reading ORB-1 Reading VGilinsky.

LVGo_ssick ')

EGCase 1

AGiambusso KRGoller RAPurple CMTrammell.

SMShepp~rd OELD MGroff (L-NRR... 48}*

EHughes (cy incoming)

EPeyton Department of State Highways and Transportation Lansing. Michigan 48904

Dear Mre Kellogg:

Co~Jnissioner Gilinsky has referred to me your question:

Why is Consumers Power Company's Palisades Plant not operating at the present time?

In December 1974 while the plant was shut down for repairs of the condenser and turbine. Consumers Power Company conducted an examination of about 7% of the tubes in one of the two steam generators and submitted a request for an amendment to their operating license which. if approved.

would have substituted this test for the more extensive tube inspection of both steam generators that was required by the operating license *

. Our review of the test results led us to the conclusion that further testing and plugging of defective tubes was required prior to allowing the resumption of power operation.

On February 6, 1975, we issued an Order for Modification of License to this effect. A copy of this

.Order is enclosed for your infonnation.

Normal power operation may be resumed after our review and approval of the results of the ongoing additional testings Consumers Power Company has informally advised us that they expect to be prepared for operation by the end of March 1975.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any additional information.

• a 1

~p rou-6 be( 6-r(/ 1~5ky /t'v'

~

. ("OVUJf rs; cd1 CYL, wt{>Vt S. Cctsrro OY1

~trcr(~

Form AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 Sincerely" Original Signed By A. Giambusso A. Gianibusso, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

• U. 5; GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974-526-166

-DISTRIBUTION Docket No. 50-255

~

Docket File NRC PDR NRR Reading ORB#l Reading VGilinsky LVGossick EGCase AGiambusso MGroff (L-NRR-48)

EHughes (cy incomng)

EPeyton Mr, Jame Kellogg Deputy Dir tor Department o

• State Highways and Transpo ation Lansing, Michi 48904

Dear J\\:

Ir. Kellogg:

Tne purpose of this le Palisades Plant is not o KR Goller RAPurpl /'

CMTra. ell SMS. *pard OE Power Company's In December 1974 while for repairs of the condenser and turbine,

_ pany conducted an examination of about 7% of the tubes in one

~o steam generators and submitted

a. request for an amendment to thei rating license which, if approved, would have substituted this test fo he more extensive tube inspection of both steam generators that was. equ cd _by the operating license.

Ou:r review of the test results ed us to t - conclusion that further testing and plugging of defe ive tubes was quired prior to allowing the reslllllption of power ope ation.

On Februar 6, 1975, we issued an Order for Modification of :icense to this effect A copy of this Order is enclosed for ya r information.

Normal power operati

• may bo resumed after our the results of the ngoing additional testing.

Consume has informally ad sed us that they expect to be prepared by the end of M.ch 1975.

d approval of Power Company r operation Please contact me should you require any additional

/

Enclosure:

Order for Modification of License dated February 6, 1975 Form AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53) AEw\\! 0240 Sincerely, Oriif;nal Signed By A. Giambusso A. Giambusso, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

..e In the Matter of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

).

)

2/6/75 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

~

Docket No. 50-255 (Palisades Plant)

)

ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF LICENSE I.

Consumers Power Company (the Licensee) is the holder of Provisional Operating Li~erise No. DPR-20, which authorizes operation of the Palisades Plant (the facility) at power.levels up to 2,200 megawatts thermal.

The facility is 1 ocated in Co_vert Tm*mshi p, Van Buren County, Michigan.

II.

The facility is a pressurized water reactor which consists of a two loop system using two steam generators designated as 11A 11 and 118 11 The facility commenced commercial operation on December 22, 1971, and~ during the course*of operation since that time, the tubes within

• 9 both steam generators have experienced localized corrosion of the wastage type and intergranular cracking.

The cause of this steam generator tubing corrosion is attributed to phosphate treatment of the water chemistry in the secondary coolant system.

It should be noted by way of background that on January 15, 1973, after approximately one year of intermittent operation of the facility, the first leak in the facility's steam generator tubes developed.

Eddy current inspection detected wall thinning in the tubes of both steam generators in the U-bend area.

All tubes in the first eleven rows from the divider plates were plugged, and the facility returned to service early in March 1973, after which it operated at essentially 100% rated power.

On August 11, 1973, the facility was shutdown because of steam generator tube leakage in excess of the limits established by the license technical specifications.

Eddy current measurements performed during September 1973 showed measurable wall thinning on nearly half the tubes in each of the two steam generators.

The inservice inspection and evaluation continued through April 1974, and all tubes with eddy current indi-

• c~tions of 60% or more wall thinning were plugged.

During a pre-operational hydrostatic test early in May 1974, leaks developed in

3 -.

two tubes at a pressure differential of 200 psi.

Reinspections of the steam generators showed that a number of tubes had develop~d a new type of degradation called 11 intergranular attack" during the nine-month period of shutdown.

Thereafter, the Licensee plugged all tubes suspected of intergranular attack.

By September 1974~ the Licensee had plugged all steam generator tubes which either were the subject of intergranular attack or exhibited eddy current indications of wall.thinning of 50%* or more.

In addi-tion, the Licensee proposed to avoid further corrosion effects by changing from a phosphate water chemistry regime to an all volatile water cl1emi~try treatment of the secondary coolant system.

Based on the then AEC Regulatory Staff.

1s (hereinafter referred to as the 11 NRC Staff") Safety Evaluation Reports dated August 30, 1974, and November 27, 1974, resumed operation of the facility was authorized.

Specifi-cally, (i) the facility could be operated at first nnly at limited power levels consistent with the requirements of a program designed to flush residual phosphates from the secondary coolant system, and then at power levels up to 10m~ of rated pol'ter subject to the limiting of the maximum

• o~erating transient differential pressure across the steam generator

• By September 1974, the plugging criterion had been revised from 60 to 50%.

4 -

• tubes to 1530 psi; and (ii) because of the possibiJity of the recur-rence of further corrosion, the facility would be subject to a further steam generator tube inspection at the end of ninety effective full-power days or six calendar month~ from the date of resumption of criticality -- September 5, 1974 -~whichever occurs first.

Based on the foregoing, the NRC Staff determined that, taking into account the number of tubes plugged, the steam generators met the requirements for reactor system performance, and that steam generator tube integrity could be maintained with adequate margins of safety during normal operation or under postulated accident conditions. Accordingly, on August 30, 1974, and November 27, 1974, Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 was amended by Amendments Nos. l 0 and 11 to reflect the foregoing rgquirements.

In December 1974, the Licensee, on it~ own initiative, conducted an eddy currenf inspection of steam generator tubes in the 11A 11 steam generator.

O~ January 3, 1975, the Licensee reported the results of this inspection~ The Licensee tested a sample of 569 tubes selected with emphasis upon tubes \\'lhich had eddy current indications of at least 40% wall thinning in previous tests. Within the inspection

• sample, 27 tubes had eddy current indications of corrosion eAceeding

-.e

- 50%.

Of the 27 tubes, one tube had indications exceeding 70%

(which the Licensee has since plugged); three tubes, from 60 to 70%;

and 23 tubes, from 50 to 60%.

These test results suggest (i) the possibility of continuing corrosion, and (ii) that there may exist, within the facility's steam generators, a number of tubes 0ith wall thinning significantly in excess of the limit established by the tube plugging criterion upon which the basis for operation of the facility has been authorized under Amendments Nos. l 0. and 11, and that, therefore, such thinning could represent a significant re-ductio~ in the margins of safet~ needed to protect the health and safety of the public.

Although the facility is otherwise ready to resume operation, the Licensee has maintained the facility in a shutdO\\'m condition since the December 1974 inspection was performed.

Under the present oper-ating license, absent further action by the NRC Staff, the.Licensee could return the faci 1 ity to full pm*1er operation in its present con-dition until March 5, 1975, without any further inspections.*

• As indicated ~upra, Amendments Nos. 10 and ll require a further steam generator tube inspection after ninety effective full -pmver days or six calendar months, whichev~r occurs first.

The six-month period expires first, and it occurs on. March 5, 1975.

r -. -

I.

I.

I r

I :

~T----e nr.

In view of the foregoing, the Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, finds that the additional license provisions set forth in Part IV below are required, and that the public health,

-safety or interest require that these conditions be made immediately effective upon issuance.

IV.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's Rules and Regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, IT IS ORDER~D THAT:

1.

The Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 is amended by the addition of paragraphs 4.14.4 and 4.14.5 to the Technical Specifications as follows:

4. 14.4 The Licensee shall conduct prior to further reactor

. opera ti on the fa 11 m.,ri ng steam generator in-service

7 inspection program:

A.

Inspect all steam generator tubes in both steam generators which previously had defect indications (not including plugged tubes) of greater than 20% wall penetration in the manner prescribed by Regulatory Guide 1.83 (issued June 1974), as that guide applies to

• inspections after the baseline inspection.

All tubes with indications of 50% or more wall thinning shall be plugged; or in the alternative, B.

Conduct additional statistical inspections as follows:

1.

With respect to each steam generator 11A 11 tube with December 1974 test indications of 50% or more wall thinning, either plug such tube or re-evaluate by the following procedure:

(a) eddy current test such tube to obtain at least 2 additional readings.

(b) average the 2 or more additional read-ings with the December 1974 reading.

(c) if the average i~dicated wall thinning is 50% or more, plug the tube.

e

-s -

2.

If the results of B.l above require plug-ging one or more tubes (in addition to the one tube already plugged since the December 1974 inspection), an additional 3% of the total tubes in steam generator 11A 11 shall be inspected, concentrating on those areas of.

the tube sheet array where tubes with defects were previously found.

All tubes with indi-cations of 50% or more wall thinning shall be plugged.

3.

Continue the sampling procedure of B.2 above until a sampling results in no tubes found that require plugging,. or all tubes have been inspected.

4.

Irrespective of the results of the inspection in B.l through 8.3 above, sample 3~ of the total tubes in steam generator 118 11

, concen-trating on those areas of the tube sheet array where tubes with defects were previously.

found.

Acceptance, plugging and further sampling criteria shall be the same as des-cribed above for steam generator 11A 11

c.

9 -

The results of the above-described inspection and tube plugging program, and a proposal for the conduct of future operations, in~luding a recommended schedule for the next steam genera-tor tube inspection shall be submitted to the NRG Staff for review and approval by letter prior to further operation.

4.14.5 Any steam generator tubes with eddy current indica-tions of, 50% or more wall thinning shall be removed from service by plugging.

Such indications may be confirmed by averaging during a given inspection, but such average shall be based on* not less than three readings, in which case an average indtcation of 50~

or more wall thinning shall result in tube plugging.

2.

This Order is effective immediately upon issuance.

3.

Within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this Order,.the Licensee may file a request for a hearing \\*Jith respect to this Orde1.

Within the same thirty (30) day period, any other person whose interest may be affected

10 -

may file a request for a hearing with respect to this Order.

If a request for a hearing is filed within the prescribed time herein, the Corrmission will issue a notice of hearing or such other order as*may be appropriate.

A request for a hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Section.

A copy of the request for a hearing should also be sent to the Chief Hearing Counsel, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, \\~ashington, D. C. 2055G, and.to R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esquire, Isham, Lincoln & Beale, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60670, attorney for the Licensee.

A petition for leave to intervene must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit which identifies the specific aspect or aspects of this Order as to which intervention is desired and specifies with particularity tbe facts on which the petitioner relies as to both his interest and his contentions with regard to each aspect on which intervrintion is requested.

Petitions stating contentions relating only to matters outside the Corrnnission's jurisdiction will be denied.

• 11 -

All requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene will be acted upon by the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

In the event that a hearing is held and a petitioner is permitted to.

intervene, that petitioner becomes a party to the proceeding and has a right to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.

For example, the petitioner may present evidence and examine and cross~

examine witnesses.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20, as amended, (2) the Licensee's inspection report dated January 3, 1975, (3) the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report dated August 30, 1974, issued in connection with Amendment No.

10 to the operating license dated August 30, 1974, which was ~ssued

• in response to the Licensee's application for amendment dated August 20, 1974, and its letter to the Directorate of Licensing dated August 28, 1974, requesting interim Technical Specifications, and (4) the Com-mission's Safety _Evaluation Report dated November 27, 1974, issued in

\\

12 -

connection with Amendment No. 11 to the operating license dated November 27, 1974, which was issued in response to the Licensee's August 20, 1974, application for amendment as supplemented November 7, 1974.

All of the above documents are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. and at the Kalamazoo Public Library, 315 South Rose Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006.

Order dated and issued at Bethesda, Maryland, this 6th day of February, 1975.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.,.. Edson G. Case, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

...