ML19309E412
| ML19309E412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1980 |
| From: | Bernstein D, Silberg J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004220008 | |
| Download: ML19309E412 (9) | |
Text
_ _.
March 31, 1980 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. )
Docket No. 50-320
~~ ~~
)
(License Amendment)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)
3 ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER By petition dated March 15, 1980, the Environmental Coali-tion on Nuclear Power (ECNP) has requested that "a public hearing be held in order to evaluate and, if necessary, to alter the pro-posed Technical Specifications" to Facility Operating License No. DPR-73.
ECNP also asserts its right to participate in such a hearing.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714(c), Licensee opposes this request.
i As indicated in the Feb. 11, 1980 Order providing opportun-ity for hearing on the proposed Order modifying the Technical Specifications for TMI Unit 2, Fed. Reg. 11282, 11283 (Feb. 20, 1980), ECNP's petition is filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714, which provides that "[a]ny person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene."
However, an intervention petition is not a more formality.
- Rather, 1
an interested party must demonstrate in its petition the following interests:
' 8 0 042 20 00 f
The petition shall set forth with particu-larity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d) of this section,*/
and the specific aspect or aspects of the sub-ject matter of the proceeding as te which peti-tioner wishes to intervene.
For the present purposes, Licensee accepts ECNP's assertion that its standing to intervene in this proceeding is adequately evidenced by its participation in other TMI proceedings, past and present.
However, ECNP has not identified in any manner in its March 15, 1980 petition or the attachments thereto which ECNP
" incorporates by reference," the " specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter" of the requested hearing on TMI Unit 2's proposed Technical Specifications in which ECNP has a particular interest.
See 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (2).
ECNP's March 15, 1980 petition fails to identify any section or sections of the proposed Technical Specifi-cations with which ECNP takes issue.
ECNP's casual reference to and incorporation of two petitions it fi' led in April and May of
- /
10 CFR 2.714 (d) states:
"The Commission, the presiding officer or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on petitions to inter-vene and/or requests for hearing shall, in ruling on a petition for leave to intervene, consider the following factors, among other things:
(1)
The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
(2)
The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(3)
The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.,
1979-*/is insufficient to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (2).
The incorporation by ECNP of its earlier petitions relating to TMI Unit 2 does not identify for Licensee, the NRC staff, or an atomic safety and licensing board convened to consider ECNP's petition, the nexus between ECNP's concerns about TMI Unit 2, as expressed in its Spring, 1979 petitions, and the recently pro-posed Technical Specification modifications for that unit.
To the contrary, ECNP's April 27, 1979 petition, for example, re-quests that certain actions be taken, such as issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report and notification to the public of proposed changes in licensed procedures; however, the NRC staff has com-plied with these requests in issuing the proposed Technical Specification amendments.
See NUREG-0647, Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment accompanying Metropol_itan Edison Co.,
et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) Order dated February 11, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 11282 et seq. (Feb. 20, 1980).
ECNP has not identified any aspects of the Safety Evaluation as to which it seeks to intervene.
- / Attached and incorporated by reference into ECNP's March 15, 1980 petition requesting a hearing on the proposed amendments to TMI Unit 2's Technical Specifications are the following documents, filed by ECNP, both of which predate issuance of the proposed amendment:
" Request to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for Emergency Action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," dated April 27, 1979, and " Supplemental Petition to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for Emergency Action," dated May 16, 1979. !
I
Licensee's review of ECNP's April 27, 1979 emergency petition reveals a general concern by that organization that because "[e] vents which have been publicly reported since about April 4, 1979, have suggested a stable situation with fission product decay heat being slowly but adequately removed from the damaged core of TMI-2," no action be taken without a public hear-ing " prior to activatior. of any plans to alter in any way the current (i.e., as of April 23, 1979) experimental and operational status of TMI-2 not in accordance with the published Technical Specifications of TMI-2 (Appendix A to License No. DPR-73, Febru-ary 8, 1978)."
Request to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation for Emergency Action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, filed by ECNP on April 27, 1979.
However, the stated purpose of E
the recently proposed license amendments is to conform TMI Unit 2 s Technical Specifications to the post-accident status of the facility.
See Metropolitan Edison Co., et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
Order dated February 11, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 11282 et seg. (Feb. 20, 1980).
The Technical Specification amend-amendments do not purport and are not intended to alter what ECNP described in its April, 1979 petition as a " stable situation";
therefore, Licensee cannot glean from this petition the present particular issues of interest to ECNP.
In its May 16, 1979 Supplemental petition, ECNP addresses a number of issues which Licensee maintains are outside the scope i..
of a hearing on the proposed Technical Specifications.
For ex-ample, ECNP asserts that Licensee and NRC staff were unprepared to respond promptly and adequately to protect the health and safety of the public, and inadequately monitored radiation re-leases during the accident; that improper venting of "large quantities of primarily coolant water.
through the electro-matic relief valve (EMV) occurred after the initial period when the core was uncovered"; and that there existed the possibility of
" dumping" of high-level water, " purified or not," into the Susque-hanna River and perforce, into Chesapeake Bay.
See ECNP's Supple-mental Petition to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for Emergency Action," dated May 16, 1979, at pp.
2-5.
- However, the issuance of the proposed Technical Specifications are not the proper forum for the litigation of NRC or Licensee actions immediately following the March 28, 1979 accident.
Rather the scope of any hearing is defined in the NRC's Feburary ll, 1980 Order as follows:
(1) whether the requirements set forth in the proposed amendments to TMI Unit 2's Technical Specifications are necessary and sufficient for the maintenance of the facility to protect health and safety or to minimize danger to life and property; and (2) whether the provisions of the February 11, 1980 Order would significantly affect the quality of the human environ-ment.
Similarly, the May 16, 1979 petition also states a number of " issues for consideration" in a public evidentiary hearing.
Id. at 6-7.
These issues fall generally into the categories of (i) radiation releases; (ii) waste disposal; (iii) the capability and intent of Licensee and the Commission to comply with the law, and the significance to both parties of the issuance of an oper-ating license for TMI Unit 2 to Licensee in 1978,
'i.n view of the events since March 28, 1979"; and (iv) the need for an Environ-mental Statement.
The first three of these issues are irrelevant to the subject matter of the proposed amendments to TMI Unit 2's Technical Specifications.
And although the third issue, regard-ing the need for an Environmental Statement, is addressed in the NRC's February 11, 1980 Order, issuing the proposed amendments, Licensee cannot discern from ECNP's March 15, 1980 petition, in-cluding its incorporated earlier petitions, any particular objec-tions by ECNP to the Staff's finding that:
[S]ince the limits on effluents and discharges contained in Appendix B to the Facility Operating License are not being changed and remain in ef-fect, and tla proposed Technical Specifications attached to this Order do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level that the proposed Technical Specifica-tions will not result in any significant environ-mental impact.
45 Fed. Reg. 11282, 11283 (Feb. 20.
1980).
In summary, ECNP has not at this time complied with NRC's reg-ulations pertaining to the filing of a petition for leave to inter-vene, although under 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (3) an intervention petition may be amended until fifteen days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference.
In order to determine whether the hearing requested by ECNP (and others) is to be held, and if held the scope and scheduling.
.~.
for such a hearing, Licensee respectfully urges that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board be promptly empanelled and that the special prehearing conference called for by 10 CFR S2.751a be scheduled at an early date.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1
By b M [.
Jay E.
Silberg Deborah L.
Bernstein Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated:
March 31, 1980 f
1 r
v
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(License Amendment)
~~~
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Answer to Request for Hearing Filed by the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power" were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 31st day of March, 1980, to all those on the attached Service List.
Deborah L.
Bernstein Dated:
March 31, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. )
Docket No. 50-320
)
(License Amendment)
-- ~~
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
Unit No. 2)
)
l SERVICE LIST Lawrence J.
Chandler, Esq.
William A. Lochstet Office of the Executive Legal 119 E. Aaron Drive Director State College, Pennsylvania 16801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Karin W.
Carter, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General J.
H. Johnsrud Office of Enforcement 433 Orlando Avenue Department of Environmental State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Resources 709 Health and Welfare Bldg.
Steven C. Sholly Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 304 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 A
J