ML19332D566
| ML19332D566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1989 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332D561 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8912040152 | |
| Download: ML19332D566 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:t Novemborrk74;gS89 tww; UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i BEFORE THE ' ATOMIC 3AFETY AND LICENSING BOAROV 17 P4 :12 i
) 7:
In'the-Matter of ) 1
) ,
Public Service Company of ) l New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 , OL ) ,
) 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) )
)
)
J INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SEADROOK . OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION Introduction l On October 26, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") published in the Federal Register a ; 1 notice that it is considering the issuance of an amendment to the Seabrook low power operating license.1 Pursuant to t.he proposed amendment, Applicants would cross-connect the plant's In trument Air System, outside containment, to the Containment Building Com-pressed Air System, which is located inside the containment. As discussed below, the proposed action 's not properly characterized as a low power license amendment, but is in reality an amendment to the application for a full power license for , Seabrook. Because the proposed design change is neither logical nor justifiable on safety grounds, Intervenors New England Coali-tion on Nuclear Pollution, Massachusetts Attorney General, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereafter "Intervenors") hereby 8912040152 891117 PDR ADDCK 05000443 Q PDR 1 54 Fed. Reg. 43,634-36, Attachment 1.
- _ - ~ ,
4 nove the Licensing Board to reopen the record and admit a late- [ filed contention challenging the proposed amendment to the o application.2 This motion is supported by the " Joint Affidavit of Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly Regarding New Hampshire t Yankee's September 21, 1989 Operating License Amendment Request > '(Plant Instrument Air Cross-Connect to Containment Building Air ! System, NYN-89136), dated November 17, 1989 (hereafter ,
" Minor /Sholly Affidavit"), Attachment 2. The Minor /Sholly Affidavit summarizes the factual issues on which they would j testify for Intervenors during a hearing.3 !
I. Contention . Applicants' proposal to cross-connect the plant's Instrument Air System to the Containment Building Compressed Air System should be rejected because it is neither logical nor supported by an adequate safety analysis. BASIS: Intervonors incorporate by reference paragraphs 8 - through 19 of the Minor /Sholly Affidavit. II. The Proposed Action is An Amendment to the Operating License Application for Seabrook. The proposed action is characterized by New Hampshire Yankee and_the NRC Staff as an amendment to the Seabrook low power license. This approach is neither logical nor consistent with 2 In a decision issued today, the Appeal Board has stated that it considers the Licensing Board to retain jurisdiction after issuance of an initial decision, until a notice of appeal has been filed. Because no notice of appeal of LBp-89-32 has been filed, Intervenors lodge this motion with the Licensing Board. 3 Obviously, the testimony could be changed or augmented as a result of information obtained through discovery.
O O
. 4 NRC's established practice regarding the treatment of changes to -technical specifications that are made following low power licensing.
Applicants have now concluded low power operation; thus, there is no logical purpose to be served by amending the low power. license.4 Moreover, the application itself leaves no doubt that the purpose of the proposed design changes is to enhance plant reliability during full oower coeration. 'The analysis of , compliance with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92 is addressed to conditions , under full power. The cross-connect will not even be implemented until the first refueling outage.5 , By treating this application as an amendment to the low power license, the Staff contradicts the Commission's established policy regarding changes to conditions for full power operation. Egg Mississioni Power & Licht Co.. Middle South Enorav. Inc., and South Mississioni Electric Power Association-(Grand Gulf Nuclear - Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-19, 10 NRC 1055 (1984). The Grand Gulf case was an uncontested licensing proceeding in which changes to the technical specifications were made after the low power license had been issued. The NRC treated as low power license amendments those changes that "were required solely to continue operation and testing at low power." 10 NRC at 1057. In con-trast, those changes that were " required only for later full-4 The NRC Staff has constructively suspended Applicants' low power license. Egg Confirmatory Action Letter 89-11, dated June 23, 1989. J 5 Minor /Sho'lly Affidavit, par. 15. I
- i. .
power operation" were treated as modifications of the original I full-power operating' license application. 142 In CLI-84-19, the Commission affirmed the correctness of this practice, finding that citizen intervenors who had sought a license amendment hear- - ing on.the full range of changes to the technical specifications "were on notice that the final license would differ from the original application, and changes to the application did not create new hehring rights." Id,. at 1058. In other words, the intervenors, who were not parties to the full power operating : license proceeding, could not obtain a hearing on the theory that the tech spec changes were amendments to the low power license. As in Grand Gulf, the design changes requested here are not
" required solely to continue low power operation." Their obvious purpose is to enhance plant reliability during full-oower opera-tion. Moreover, low power operation has ended. Thus, Applicants' proposed changes to the Seabrook technical specifica- '
tions must be treated as changes to the full power operating license application. The NRC cannot preclude Intervenors from obtaining a ore-full-oower licensina hearing by characterizing these changes as low power license amendments. III.-Intervenors Meet the Standard for Reopening the Record. As set forth below, Intervenors meet the standard for reopening the record in 10 C.F.R. 2.734. A. The Motion is Timely. For a number of reasons, this motion is timely filed. First, Intervenors' contention is not based on information that
m, e v - ( , existed previously, but on a recent change to the Applicants' conception of what the Seabrook design should be. Thus, there is 1 , no way that Intervenors could have formulated this contention previous to Applicants' proposal. Second, Intervenors have filed this motion within a reason-ble time after discovering the proposed design change. The first e public notice of the proposed changes was published in the Fed-eral Register on October 26, 1989.6 Intervenors became aware of the proposed license amendment during the first week of November, after receiving the Federal Register by first-class mail. They immediately sought.the assictance of expert consultants, which
, was essential in order to evaluate the proposal. It was also ,
necessary to obtain the license amendment application,7 which had not been served on Intervenors, and to investigate which portions of the FSAR were implicated by the proposal. Finally, because the application provides so little safety information (it does not even cite the relevant portions of the FSAR), and because of the puzzling contradictions in the applica-tion, preparation of the contention was more time-consuming than it would otherwise have been. Nevertheless, Intervenors have filed this motion within thirteen working days of receiving notice that the application was pending. The motion is therefore timely. 6 54 Fed. Reg. 43,634-36, Attachment 1. 7 Letter from'New Hampshire Yankee to NRC, No. NYN-89116, dated September 21, 1989, re: Request for License Amendment; Plant Instrucment Air Cross-Connect to Containment Building Air Sys-tem, Attachment 3.
e 6 B. The Motion Raises Significant Safety Issues. The motion also raises significant safety issues. As dis-
- cussed in , the Minor /Sholly Affidavit, NHY's application is so illogical as to raise serious questions about the adequacy of the safety analysis that was allegedly performed to support the ,
application. While the alleged purpose of the cross-connect is to. provide greater reliability during full-power operation, the application states that the air-operated valve in the cross-connect line will be closed during Modes 1-4, which are the oper-ational modes.8 Thus, the cross-connect will only be operable when the plant is shut down. Moreover, the application is not supported by an adequate safety analysis. First, it fails to address the crucial question of whether the proposed design change could increase the prob-ability of accidents already reviewed or introduce new accidents not already reviewed; nor does the request provide sufficient information such that the NRC staff could independently evaluate these matters.9 The application also fails to evaluate systems interactions questions that are raised by the cross-connect.10 In short, the application proposes a change that would exacerbate a containment leakage path without any corresponding safety benefit.11 Moreover, it is neither logical ner accompanied by an 8 Minor /Sholly Affidavit, pars. 11-14. 9 Minor /Sholly Affidavit, par. 17. I 10 Id , par. 18. 1 11 .As stated in the FSAR, "[a]dditional containment penetrations and containment isolation valves introudce additional unnecessary potential pathways for radioactive leakage follow- ' ing a postulated accident." FSAR at 7.1-23, Attachment 4. l
~ h i adequate analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed changes on plant safety.12 In fact, the incoherence of the application raises serious questions about the Applicants' procc-dures for evaluating safety and design issues regarding the Seabrook plant. Finally, as demonstrated in the accompanying affidavit, a materially different result will be achieved by the granting of a hearing in this instance, because a change to the technical spec-ifications which is nonsensical and which exacerbates the poten-tial for containment leakage, will be denied. IV. Intervenors Meet the Late-filed Contention Standard. 1 Intervenors also meet the late-filed contention standard. As discussed in Section III above, this filing is timely. More-over, there are three reasons why there are no other satisfactory means for protecting Intervenors' interests. First, this is the only forum in which Intervenors can obtain a hearing on the pro-posed design changes,13 and no other party has such an issue > pending before the Licensing Board. Second, resolution by the NRC Staff is inappropriate in this case. The Staff, which should have seen the inherent contradi-tion in the application, simply repeated the information in the application and even suggested that it might grant the requested 12 Minor /Sholly Affidavit, par. 19. 13 As discussed above, the proposed changes do not constitute amendments to the low power license, and are thus not appropriately heard in the context of license amendment hear-ings.
e L 4 license amendment before the time for requesting a license amend- ; l-ment-hearing had expired.14
- Third, because of the contradictions and omissions in the ,
license amendment application, discovery and cross-examination will be required to fully ventilate the' merits of the applica- l tion. Finally, it is simply unclear to what extent litigation of i
- this contention will broaden or delay the Seabrook operating I license proceeding. If it is true that the proposed cross-connect will not be in use during plant operation, the design change can be rejected very quickly on the ground that it is without logical basis. If, on the other hand, the cross-connect is to be used during full power operation, it will be necessary to litigate the adequacy of the safety analysis underlying the proposal.. While this litigation will take longer, it should not be unduly cumbersome because it involves discrete safety systems.
1 l l l l l-l 1 . 14 54, Fed. Reg. at 43,634, 43,635. i. 1
[..r,' L -k' , u 9- i t' , i CONCLUSION: l For the foregoing reasons,.the record of this proceeding ! '[ should be reopened and Intervenors' contention admitted for liti-gation. I , t ! Respectfully submitted on behalf of NECNP, SAPL and Mass AG, L lane Curran [ HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY ' 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 i Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 November 17, 1989 i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 17, 1989, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by hand, overnight mail, or first-class mail
- on the parties to the attached ser
('ce list.C Diane Curran s b a
- 4
- 0
7
,g- t I .r SEABROOK SERVICE LIST . ,
tI ., U .Mrs. Anne 11 Goodman - Paul McEachern,!!aq. COCKIIO l , f J. Paulllollwerk, Cha Ik>ard of Sclectmen - Shaines & McDachern J.P. Nadeau MU L Atomic Safety & Ucensing - 13-15 New Market Road P.O. Iloa 360 Townof Rye
! ? - Appeal Doord . Durham, Nil 0D42 Maplewood Avenue 155 Washir ton Road E : - U.S. Nuelaar Regulatory Comen. Portsmouth, Nil 0M01 Rye, Ne mg6Sie $70 N 3 2 -
Washington D.C 20555 Stantey W. Knowles 1 Board of Selecimen Sandre cavutis
! . filoward A. Wilber - P.O. Box 710 RI'D 1. Dos 1154 Ot b Atomic Safety and ucensing ' f North llampton, N1103826 East Kensington,NII 03827 4
[- . Appeal Board .. *lly hand
'~
! U.S. NRC : Judith II. Mirner, Ihq. " Thomas O. Dignan, Paq. "Dy twernight delivery p . Washington,D.C 20555 Silverglate, Gertner, et al. R.K. Oad !!, Esq.
88 Droad Street Ropes A Gray [. Alan S. Rosenthal Ikuton,MA 02110 One Internatior al Place l : Atomic Safety and ucensing , . Ikuton, MA 02110 2624 p . Appeal Board Senator Gordon J. Ilumphrey U.S. NRC U.S. Senate Robert A. Dackus, Esq. I ' Washington,D.C 20515 Washington,D.C 20510 Deckus, Meyer & Solomon (Attn. Tom Durack) lit lowell Street
'Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Manchester, Nil 03105
' Atomic Safety and ucensing Ikard Senator Gordon J. Ilumphrey -
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Eagle Squato, Ste 507 'Mitzi A. Young, Esq. M
' Washington, D.C 20555 Concord, Nil 03301 !!dwm J. Reis, thq.
Office of the General Counsel f Dr, Richard P. Cole Gary W. Ilotmea, lhq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commsn Atomic Safety and ucenaing ik>ard llotmes & Ellis Washington,DC 20$55
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminion 47 Winnacunnent Road Washington, D.C 20555 Ilampton, N11 03M2 11. Joseph Flynn, Paq. ,
Office of General Counsel
- Kenneth A. McCollom William Armstrong ITIMA
. Atomic Safety and ucensing Doord Civf. Defense Director 500 C Street S.W.
U,& Nuclear Regulatory Commasion 10 Pront Street Washington,D.C 2N72 ' Wuhington, D.C 20555 theter, Nil 03833 George Dana Disbee, thq.
. Robert R. Pierce, Paq. Calvin A.Canney Geoffrey M. Iluntington, Esq.
. Atomic Safety and Ucensing Ikwrd City Manager Office of the Attorney Ocneral ,
t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , City Itall . State llouse Anne " i Washington, D.C 20555 126 Daniel Street Concord, Nil 03301 Portsmouth, Nil 0201 Atomic Safety and ucensing Richard A. Ilampe, Paq.
, Appeal Board Panel ' Edward A. Thomas llampe and McNicholas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission IT.MA 35 Pleasant Street Washington, D.C 20555 442 J.W, McCormack (POCil) Concord, Nil 03301 Iloston, MA 02109 I E Atomic Safeey and Ucensing R. Smit Ilill-Whitton
' a Board Panel . Alfred V.Sargent, Chairman Lagoulis, Clark, lidl.Whilton f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiulon Ikurd of Selectmen and McGuire l9 Washington, D.C 20555 Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 79 Date Street Newburygott,MA 01950 -
< Docketing and Service Branch Rep. Suranne Dreiseth L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Town of llampton Falls Diana Sidebotham l .' Washington, D.C 20535 Drinkwater Road RFD # 2 Dor 1260 Ilampton Falls, N1103844 Putney,Vr 05346 M' heel Santossonso, Chairman
- Iloard of Selectmen Phillip Ahrens, thq. Richard Donovan Jewell Stract. RPD # 2 Assistant Attorney General PEMA
- Southllampton,Nll 03H2 State llouse, Station #6 442 J.W. McCormack (POCll)
Augusta,MD N333 Ikston,MA 02109 J Jane Doughty _ 3 iSAIC . Allen tampert John Traficonte, Paquire ! , ' 5 Market Street CMi Defense Direcor Assistant Attorney General ' Portsmouth, Nil 03801 , Yown of Brentowood 1 Ashburton Place,19th Phor Exe'ter, Nil 03833 Ekston,MA 02108 Ashod N. Amirian, Paq. 145 South Main Street P.O. Box 38 Dradford, MA 01835
-li
Attachment 1 4
, 43634 Federal Ret:ister / Vol. 54. No. 206 / Thursday. October 26. 1989 / Notices R
ti including techmcal informa tion; between the Plant Instrument Air contamment Buildmg Compressed Air fmancial data. such as salanes, and System and the Contamment Att System is non.aafety related and is not rehed 2 personal information concerning System. The cross-connect would enter upon for safe shutdown. The new penetrauon p indmduals associated with the proposals. These matters are within the containment building thru an existing containment penetration. X-68. pipin8 des ed _,d ds , , ual mupB p,, m j exemptions (4) and16) of 5 U.S.C. The penetration will be added to part 50. Appendix l. The activation of this 552b(cl. Covernment in the Sunshme penetration wdl not affect the existma orfsite [ Technical Specification Table 3.6-1 Act. dosage analysis since the analysis already L " Secondary Containment Bypass assumes the maximum possible bypass { M. Rebecca Winkler. Cummitme Management OMcer Leakage Paths", The proposed change would be leakage. The total contamment mtegrated leakage. as well as local leakage rates. will [FR Doc. 894517e Filed lo45-d9. 8 45 aml implemented in two phases. The first remain within 10 CTR part 50. Appena1x 1 sumo cops 7sso-ot-ai phase is scheduled for completion pnor hmits. Thu cross connect will not be used
~
to commercial operation and would dunns Mode i l-4. therefore, incommg 3 ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ include the installation of the cross- instrument air will n t affect contamment j pmssur connect piping from the Plant instrument P'[C,,,,, h possibility of a new or NUCLEAR REGULATORY
& COMMIS$10N Air System to the Containment different kind of accident from any i
IDocket No. 030-18655-EA, ASLBP No. 89-Compressed Air System.The piputB prevmusly evaluated. The additionsi Type 3 59 -0 isolation design will meet 10 CFR pa:'t "C" penetrations manmum leakage tn
- 8 duct MaterW Ucense
- 50. Appendix A. General Design Cnteria coniunction with the combmed len. age of the
- 56. "Pnmtry Containment Isolation" by existmg Tyre "U" and "C" penetrauons will b Atomic Safety and Licens6.ig Board; utilizmg a fail-closed att operated valve not exceed the totalleakage allowed by to d Prehearing Conference on Nuclear and outside Contamment and a check valve CTR part 50 Appendtx 1 for boundtng Radiological Imaging Physicians inside Containment. The air operated radiation doses to witAn the dose guidelines
; valve's automatic open/close function of to CTR part 100 dunna accider.t conditions.
i Before Adrmustrative Judges: D. Pa ul 3. Inv Ive a significant mduction m a Cotter Jr.. Chairman; Dr. Harry Foreman, will be disarmed and the valve will be margin f safety. The bases for the Technical. 1 Member: Dr Jerry R. Kline-administrmtively controlled in the locked Specifications mdicate that allowable q j October 19.1989. closed position for Modes 1-4. The leakages will be consistent with assumptions Please take notice that a prehearmE second phase of this change will provide made m the offsite done analyses. the instrumentation and electncal conference will be held on Tuesday, changes required to make the cross. Therefore, based on the above facts, t November 7. at the 52nd District Court, the Commission has made a proposed connect operate automatically with
- j. 4th Division. Council of Chambers. 500 Containment Air System low pressure determination that the Amendment
, West Big Beaver. Troy, Michigan 48084 and assure post. accident isolation. This request involves no significant hazards ,i. from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
phase is scheduled to be implemented consideration.
]'
October 9.1989. Bethesda, Maryland. pnor to completion of the first refueling The Commission is seeking public For the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board. outage. comments on this proposed B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Before issuance of the proposed determination. Any comments received Chairman. Admmistretwe/udge. license amendment, the Commission within 30 days after the data of i (FR Doc. 8945148 Filed 1045 8.45 aml will have made findings required by the publication of this notice will be a coo, , Atomit. Energy Act of 1954, as amended considered in making any final (the Act) and the Commission's determination. The Commission will not regulations. normally make a final determination + IDocket No. 50-4431 The Commission has made a proposed unless it receives a request for a determmation that the request for hearmg. Public Service Company of New . Hampshire, Seabrook Station; amendment involves no signtficant Written comments may be submitted hazards consideration. Under the by mail to the Regulatory Publications fv Contideration of lasuance of Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Amendment to Facility Operating Branch, Division of Freedom of 'y~ 50.92, this means that operation of the biformation and Publications Services. License and Proposed No Significant facility in accordance with the proposed Office of Administration. U.S. Nuclear Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing amendment would not (1) involve a Regulatory Commission. Washic6 ton. significant increase in the probability or DC 20555, and should cite the h' The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory consequences of an accident previously publication date and page number of , C Commission (tLe Commission) is evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of this Federal Register notice. Written ..." considering issuance of an amendment a new or different kind of accident from comments may also be delivered to to Facility Operating License No. NPF. any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Room P-2?.3, Phillips Building,7920 _ ) n . 67 issued to New Hampshire Yankee involve a significant reduction in a , 3 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, ,,q (the licensee) for operation of Seabrook margin of safety. from h30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies of 4 Station located in Seabrook. New Hampshire Yankee has reviewed the written comments received may be . ,N Rockingham County, New Hampshire, proposed change utiliuns the critena examined at the NRC Public Document .7 The proposed amendment would spect!!ed in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined Room, the Gelman Building. 2120 L Mt t preclude the potential of a forced plant that the proposed change would not Street, NW, Washington, DC. The filing 7r shutdor, as a result oflos's of the 1. Involve a significani increase in the ' of requests for hearing and petitions for 7 r. Containment Building Compressed Air pr bability of consequences of any accident ' previously evaluated. The activation of a leave to inters ene is discussed below. . System. New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) By November 27,1989, the licensee 4 ContaNe$'"n $ci,' P* proposes that a back up air supply be utuNn o'f td* j connected to the Containment Building may file a request for a beartng with M Plant Instrument Air System to backup t i respect to issuance of the amendment to y Compressed Air System. The back.up containment Buildma Compressed Air alt supply would be a cross-connection System durms Modes 5 and 6. The the subject facility operating license and. g' any person whose interest may be .e ;I 3 4
, .o s J '~
L' N f
a Fedural RegiMer / Vol. 54, No. 200 / Thursday October Od.1989 / 'lotices
.CGy i Med affec'ed by this proceeding and who the inue of law or fact to ne raised or fimil determmation will consider all buon wnhes to par.icipate as a party in the controverted. In addition. 'he petitioner public and State comments received.
proceeding n.ust file a wntten peution shall provide a bnef explanation of the Should the Commission take this acann, C7 for leave to mtervene. Request for a bases of the contention and a concise it will pubhsh a notice of issuance and l Q I hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance sta'ement of the alleged facts or expert opiruon which support the contention provido for opportumty for a heanns after issuance. The Commission expects f with the Commission's " Rules of and on which the petitioner intends to that the need to take this action will { Practice for Domestic Licensing reb/ in provmg the contention at the occur very infrequently.
@ Proceedings" in 10 CFR part 2. hecimg. The petitioner must abio l
Interested persons should uonsult a A request for a heanng or a petition provide references to those specif c current copy of to CTR 2.Tu wruch ,a r.ources and documents of which the for leave to mtervene must be filed with petitioner is to establish those facts or the Secretary of the Commissmn, U.S. available at the Commission s Public Document Room, the Celmun Buildint;. aware and on which the petitioner Nuclear ReEdatory Commission, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC intends to rely expert opmion. Petitioner Washington. D C 20555. Attention- ' must provide suffi:: tent information to ' " " 20555 and at the Local Public Document Room located at the Exeter Public Library, Founders Park. Exeter, New show ' hat a genuine dia pute exists with d ss o Decument Room, the Celman Building, b the applicant on a mater:al issue of law s Hampshire 03823. If a request for a or fact. Contentions shall be hmited to 2120 L Street, N W. Washington. D C, by [ heanng or petition for leave to intervene matters withm the scope of the the above date. Where petitions are is filed by the above date, the amendments under consideration. The filed during the last ten (10) days of the l Commission or an Atomic Safety and contention must be one which,if proven, notice penod. it is requested that the p Licensing Board, designated by the would entitle the petttioner to relief. A petitioner promptly so inform the G Commission or by the Chairman of the petitioner who fntls to file such a Cammission by a toll-free telephone call Atomic Safety and Licensing Board supplement which satisfies these to Western Uruon at 1-{600) 325-0000 fin 2 Panel, will rule on the request and/or requirements with respect to at leant one htissouri l-(800) 342.-6700). The Western n petition and the Secretary or the contention will not be permitted to Union operator should be given [ designated Atomic Safety and Licensmg partictpate as a party. Datagram Identification Number 3737 Board willissue a notice of heanng or Those permitted to mtervene become ,md :he following message addresseJ to an appropnote order. parties to the proceeding subject to any Rmhard H. Wessman, Project Director: As required by 10 CFR 2.'14. a limitations m the order granting leave to (peutioner's name and telephone petition for leuve to mtervene shall set intervene, and have the opportumty to number), date petition was mailed), forth with particulanty the mterest of participate fully in the conduct of the (plant neme, and (publication date and the petitioner in the proceeding, and heanng, including the opportunity to page number of this Federal Register how that interest may be affected by the present evidence and cross examme notice). A copy of the petition'should results of the proceeding. The petition witnesses. also be sent to the Offlee of the General should specifically explain the reasons If a heanng is requested, the Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory why intervention should be permitted Commission will make a final Commission. Washington, D C 20555, with particular reference to the determination on the issue of no following factors: (1) The nature of the and to Thomas Dignan, Esq., Ropes a sigmficant hazards considerations. The petitioner's right under the Act to be Gray,225 Franklin Street, Boston, final determination will serve to decide to the proceeding: (2) the hiassachusetts 02110, attorney for the when the beanng is held. mada nature am partfextent of the petitioner's If the final determination is that the gIC ' property, fi;.ancial, or other interest in request for amendment involves no s 9nt mely filings of petitions for leave the proceeding: and (3) the possible significant hnards consideration, the to mtervene, amended petitions, effect of any order which may be Commission may issue the amendment supplemental petitions and/or requests entered in the proceeding on the and make it effective, notwithstanding for hearing will not be entertained petitioner's interest. The petition should the request for a heanng. Any hearing absent a determination by the also identify the specific aspect (s) of the held would take place after issuance of Commission, the presiding officer or the subject matter of the proceeding as to the amendment. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that which petitioner wishes to intervene. If a final determination is that the the petition and/or request should be Any person who has filed a petition for amendment involves a significant granted based upon a balancing of the leave to intervene or who has been hazards consideration, any hearing held factors specified in 10 CFR 2.?14(a)(1)(l)- admitted as a party may amend the would take place before the issuance of (v) and 2.714(d). , , petition without requesting leave of the any amendment. For further detalla with respect to this l Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the Normally, the Commission will not action, see the application for ! first prebearing conference scheduled in issue the emendment until the amendment dated September 21,1938, I the proceeding, but such an amended expiration of the 30 day notice period. which is available for public inspection petition must satisfy the specificity However, should circumstances change requirements desenbed above. at the Commission's Public Document during the notice period such that failure Room, the Gelman Buildino,2120 L , Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to to act in a timely way would result, for Street. N W. Washington, D.C. 20555 l the first prehearing conference example,in derating or shutdown of the and at the Local Public Document Room
- scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner facility, the Commission may issue the located at the Exeter Public Library.
shall file a supplement to the petition to license amendment before the Founders park. Exeter, New Hampshire intervene which must include a list of expiration of the 30 day notice period. the contentions which are sought to be 03a33' provided that its final determination is litigated in the matter. Each contention that the amendment involves no Dated at Rockvilla, Maryland, this toth day m.ust consist of a specific statement of significant hazards considerations. The of Octotier. toso. . . . . , , , , s. 1
e ,
, 4 43836 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 200 / Thursday. Octt,ber 20. 1989 / Notices l'or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ucensing Doard, designated by the supplement which satisfles these Victor Noroes. Commission or by the Chairman of the requirements with respect to at least one Pro /ect Moncser. Prorect Directorate I.J. Atomic Safety and Ucensing Doord contention will not be permitted to D/nsion of Raoctor Pro /ects Ull. Of.6ce cf panel, will rule on the request and/or participate se a party.
7 NuclearReactorResulation. petition: and the Secretary or the Those permitted to intervene become L designated Atomic Safety and Ucensing } [nt Doc. 8ws::'o l'iled 10-:Mn 8:45 am) parties to the proceeding subject to any enAma cops tsoo.ewa Doard willissue a notice of hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to an appropnate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to As required by 10 CTR 2.714. a participate fully in the conduct of the [DAet No. 80-$a81 petition for leave to intervene shall set heanng including the opportunity to forth with particulanty the interest of present evidence and cross examine Toledo Edloon Co et el4 the petitioner in the proceeding. and Consideration of Issuance of witnesses. how that interest may be offected by the A request for a hearing or a petition Amendment to Facility Operating results of the proceeding.The petition Ucense and Opportunity for Hearing for leave to intervene must be filed with should specifically explain the reasons the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. The !!.S. Nuclear Regulatory wl.y interventi n should be permitted Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Commission (the Commission)is with particular reference to the Washington DC20555. considering issuance of an amendment ! Ilowmg factors:(1)The nature of the Attention: Docketing and Service Dranch, to facility Operating Ucense No. NpF-3 petitioner e right under the Act to be or may be delivered to the Commission's issued to Toledo Edison Company and made a party to the proceeding:(2) the nature and extent of the petitioner a Public Document Room. 21:0 L Street. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating NW . Washington. l.C . tv the above Company (the licensee), for operation of property, financial, or other interest in date. Where petitions ~ra filed during the Davis-Desse Nuclear Power Station, the pr ceeding: and (3) the possible the last ten (10) days of the notice Unit 11ocated in Otiswa r>nntv. Ohio. effect of any order which may be entered in the pmceeding on the period. it la requested that the petitioner The amendment woidd incroise the promptly so inform the Commission by a response time requirement for the liigh petitioner's interest.The petition should toll free telephone call to Western Flux / Number of Reactor Coolant pumps 01:o identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to Union at 1-aca-325 4000 (In Missouri 1-On (power / pumps) trip function of the 800-342-6700).The Western Union Reactor Protection System provided in which petitioner wishes to intervene. uperator should be given Datagram Table 3.3. of the Technical Any pers n who has filed a petition for lean to intenne or who has been Identification Number 3737 and the Specifications from 451 milliseconds to following message addressed to John N. 631 milliseconds.This amendment admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the llannom petitioner's name and application was dated February 21.1080 tele hone number; date petition was and was supplemented by letters dated B ard up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first pre-hearing conference scheduled malfed:l date ankant name:ofand publication july 19.1989 and September 1.100D- age number this Federal Prior to issuance of the proposed in the procuding, but such an amended peudon tnust sausfy the specincHy Register notice. A copy of the petition license amendment, the Commission should also be sent to the Office of the "9 ' ' T en 15fdays prior to Geral Cansel. ESJr.kar will have made findings required by the N te th 'ht Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Regulatory Commission. Washington, the first prehearing conference ,
- (the Act) and the Commission's scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner DC:0555, and to Gerald Charnoff. Esq.,,
regulations Shaw, Pittman. Potts a Trowbridge. 2300 Dy November:7.1989, the licensee h 11 pl th'P tt nt N Street. NW. )Vashington. DC 20037 may ille a request for a hearing with nter ene h$ch must clu ie 9g the contentions that are sought to be attorney for the licensen. respect toissuance of the amendment to litigated in the matter. Each contention Nontimely filings of petitions for leave the subject facility operating license and must consist of a specific statement of to intervene, amended petitions, any person whose interest may be supplemental petitions and/or requests affected by this proceeding and who the issue oflaw or fact to be raised or contmverted. In addition. the petitioner for tiearing will not be entertained
; wishes to participate as a party in thc shall provide a brief axplanation of the absent a determination by the .'
proceeding must file a written request Commission. the presiding officer or the for hearing and a petition forleave to bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert pre:Iding Atomic Safety and Licensing intervene. Requests for a hearink and opinion which support the contention Board that the petition and/or request petitions for leave to intervene shall be and on which the petitioner intends to should be granted based upon a 1 filed in accordance with the rely in proving the contention at the balancing of the factors specified ln 10 Commission's Rules of Practice for hearing. The petitioner must also . CFR 2.714(a)(1) (1)-{v) and 2.714(d). " Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 provide references to those specific . . - 'If a request for hearing is received, the . CFR part 2. Interested persons should Commission's staff may issue the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 sources and documents of which petitioner is aware and on which the the amendment afterit completes its - f ^ which is available at the Commission's petitioner intends to rely to establish ' technical reytew'and prior to the - Public Document Room, the Celman those facts or expert opinion. petitioner completion of any required hearing ifit Building. 2120 L Street. N.W must provide sufficient information to
- publishes a further notice for public Washington. DC 20555 and at the local show that a genuine dispute exists with comment of its intent to make a no ,?
9 Public Document Room located at the the applicant on a material lesue oflaw significant hazards consideration finding 3 L University of Toledo Libraiy, . * . . . - . . or fact. Contentions shall be limited to in accordance with to CFR 50.91 and ~ 4 i Documents Department. 2801 Bancroft '
-t matters within the scope of the 50.92.
Avenue. Toledo, Ohio 43600. If a request amendment under consideration. The For further details with respect to this for a hearing or petition for leave to contention must be one which. if proven, action, see the application for intervene is flied by the above date, the would entitle the petitioner to relief. A - amendment dated February 21.1989 as
)1 Commission or an Atomic Safety and petitioner who fails to file such a y supplemented by letters dated luly 19 ' .i e. . . . . . .;k ' % . ,,
q ' '
;}}