ML19332D732
| ML19332D732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1989 |
| From: | Saporito T NUCLEAR ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9485 OLA-4, NUDOCS 8912050173 | |
| Download: ML19332D732 (20) | |
Text
A'1})Uf$
a
- n.:: :n UNITED STATES ~OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
.g g, y g g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD rr In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-4 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-4
)
(Turkey' Point Units 3 and 4) ) (Pressure / Temperature Limits).
)
CLARIFICATION OF CONTENTIONS AND' ANSWER TO LICENSEE'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NEAP /SAPORITO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 5 I. Introduction The . Licensee as represented by counsel (Harold F. Reis and associates) submitted on November. 13, 1989 a document stating argument:in opposition to a petition for leave to intervene filed by
- the Nuclear Energy Accountcbility Project and Thomas J. Saporito, J r '. (collectively referred to as " Petitioners") on October 22, 1989.
Petitioners would state for the record that Petitioners are not
" legal eagles" (attorneys at law), and therefore Petitioners may not have been fully cognizant of the many rules and requirements 1 involved in the complex filing process of the United States government germane to Atomic Safety Licensing Board hearings. We are j merely common folk of this great country attempting to ensure public l safety througn intervention.
1 l
l l
8912050173 891116 l PDR ADOCK 05000250 1 0 PDR 1
f
< *f, l
V ,
n ,
h Petitioners readily absorb the generous legal research efforts
]
demonstrated by the Licensee's counsel and usually do not repeat an- 1 l
error twice.
1 Petiticners can not avail'themselves of the unlimited 1
legal and financial resources which the Licensee possesses, and this is the very first Atomic Safety Licensing Board hearing for which Petitioners expect to be granted leave, therefore, Petitioners request- that this Board exercise a broad latitude in consideration -
j" of Petitioners' request for leave to intervene- in the instant y
proceeding.
/4 e >
Petitioners will attempt to wade through the maze of legal
+ argument by the Licensee's " legal eagles" to the best of our l y,
J i abilities in the interest of public safety and the environment as a E whole.
- II. Standina Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714 (a)(2) (1989), a petition to intervene ~
must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of
! the proceeding, and the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which a petitioner wishes to intervene.
1 Licer.see states on (p.3) in part in their response that:
l "...the Petition does not state where his principal '
I, place of employment is or specify the nature or the extent of work that Mr. Saporito conducts in and about Miami or how much time he spends in Miami.... Petition fails to catablish that Mr. Saporito has sufficient contacts in the ares within 50 miles of Turkey Point, and he, therefore, does riot meet
[ the Commission's " zone of interest" reauirement."
Petitioners would address here that Mr. Saporito is the 1
l L
l r
l
{
Executive Director for the Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (NEAP) and therefore, regularly ccinmutes to the Mitmi area withi.i 50 l 1
m1 es of the Turkey Paint plant.
5 As the Executive Lirector of NEAP, !
i Mr. Saporito has the grave responsibility to constantly research the 1 voluminous documents loacted at the Florida International University )
which is officially designated as the NRC Public Document room. The
& mount. of rssearch time varies from week to week but generally two ;
t or three trips per week are not uncommon.
Furthermore, Mr. Saporito represents NEAP's interests as a public speaker before many public interest groups within a 50 mile area of the Turkey Point plant. At these speaking engagements, Mr.
P Saporito informs the public about the purpose of NEAP and the very grave safety issues related to the unsafe operation of the Turkey Point nuclear plants. These important public speaking engagements ;
meet the requirements of NEAP's articles of incorporation and are therefore necessary practices of NEAP, as represented by Mr.
Sapor 1to, in the proper conduct of business of the corporation.
Additionrilly, Mr. Saporito is a former employee of the Licensee and was discharged three days before Christmas on December 22, 1988 because Mr. Saporito contacted the NRC Region II office and reported nuclear safety concerns to Mr. Oscar DeMiranda related to operations at the Turkey Point plant. During Mr. Saporito's employment with the Licensee, he became a conduit for other Licensee employees at the Turkey Point plant to the NRC regarding nuclear safety concerns.
Mr. Sapor 1to, currently Executive Director of NEAP, continues
-3
4 .
i
~
\
i to act as a conouit for Licensee's employees at Turkey Point as a !
direct result of the severe chilling effect established by the Licensee's _ illegal conduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 towards Mr.
Saporito.
I The Licensee's employees have conveyed a concern that the Licensee may have placed a phone tape on NEAP's phone which would i
j jeopardize their confidentiality in relating their nuclear safety concerns to Mr. Saporito. Therefore, Mr. Saporito regularly commutes I to the Miami and Homestead areas to personally meet with these
. confidential allegers in an effort to continuously apprize the NRC of new information germane to unsafe operations at Turkey Point. Mr.
Oscar DeMiranda, SAC NRC Region II, can validate these communications by Mr. Saporito to the NRC. Mr. DeMiranda can be reached by phone at (404) 331-4193.
Finally, Mr. Saporito is the President and Chief Executive Officer ~ of the Airflow Service Corporation, a legally incorporated company in the State of Florida whose general purpose is to provide airconditioning treatment and clean 1ng services from Palm Beach County to Miami, Florida. This work involves commuting to within 50 ,
miles of the Turkey Point plant on a regular basis.
Accordingly, Petitioners have established that Mr. Saporito has sufficient contacts in the area within 50 miles of Turkey Point, and he, therefore meets the Commission's *:one of interest" requirement.
The Licensee's response document also states in part that:
"Nor does NEAP meet the requirements for intervening on behalf of its members...the Petitiot. suggests that these
)
l individuals have authorized NEAP to represent them in this proceed 1ng. The Pet 1 tion merely states that those members j "may be affected..." Consequently, the Petition fails to '
establish NEAD's standing as a representative of its !
"memoors"..." i J
Petitioners address here that NEAP has initiated a " Permission !
to Represent" cocument and has mailed this document to each NEAP member listed in the Petition. These documents should be received by 4
the Comnrission within a few days and will validate NEAP's authority i to represent the interest of those members. Consequently, the -l Petition establishes NEAP's standing as a representative of its
" members".
t To the extent that NEAP is attempting to intervene on its own behalf as an " environmental organization," intervention should be gl' anted because NEAP has demonstrated numerous frequent contacts within a 50 mile area of Turkey Point.
Accordingly, NEAP and Mr. Saporito have demonstrated standing to intervene on their own behalf and on the behalf of NEAP members in this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioners' request to intervene as j
a matter of right should be granted. Additionally, NEAP and Mr.
l' Saporito have made a showing for discretionary intervention, therefore, a basis has been identified for intervention by NEAP and Mr. Saporito, and such intervention should be granted.
l III. Petitioners Meet the Requirements L
, Governino a Late Filed Petition to Intervene Petitioners have made the requisite showing that they should be permitted to intervene out of time. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714 (a)(1)
(1989), the Licensing Board may exercise its discretion to grant a 1
e late-filed petition if it finds that a favorable showing has been made upon a balancing of the five factors enumerated herein:
(i) Good cause, if'any, for failure to file on time. -
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the p6titioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. !
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. ,
A. Petitioners Have Shown Good Cause i
As stated in the Petition,.Mr. Saporito was an employee of the '
Licensee in November 1988 and was unable to file at that time ,
because he was employed as an Instrument and Control Specialist at Turkey Point. Petitioners address here that Mr. Saporito was not cognizant of the severe radiation damage sustained by the Turkey Point reactors during his employment with the Licensee.
Additionally, Mr. Saporito was not knowledgeable of the amendment ;
request because he was- not knowledgeable of the Federal Register method of notification nor what or where a Public Document room was.
- Indeed, Mr. Saporito only became aware of the aforementioned elements after meeting with Ms. Joette Lorion, the Intervenor in this proceeding in 1989.
The Licensee asserts in part in their response document that: -
"Nor could FPL have discharged or otherwise discriminated against Mr. Saporito if he had filed such a -
petition while he was an employee. It is prohibited from
_s.
~
doing- so by Section 210 of the Energy Reorgan12ation Act of '
1974 (42 U.S.C. 585) (1982)."
Petitioners address here that the Licensee did in fact violate the provisions of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act and i i
10 CFR 50.7 when they discharged Mr. Saporito on December 22, 1988, l therefore Licensee's reliance on the law to prohibit discrimination or discharge for filing to intervene on the license amendment is not J withstanding and is without merit. The resulting chilling effect at i Turkey Point is evidenced by the Licensee's employee's continuous contact with NEAP to convey their nuclear safety concerns to the NRC regarding unsafe operations of the Turkey Point plant.
The Licensee states in part in their response document that: .
"The' reason proffered by Petitioners for NEAP not having -
filed on time is that it "was not incorporated under the laws :
of Florida in November 1988 and thus, could not have petitioned for leave to that newly-acquired intervene." NRC case law is clear organizational existence does not constitute good cause for delay in seeking intervention."
Petitioners address here that Mr. Saporito founded NEAP and therefore the aforementioned arguments concerning Mr. Saporito's late filing also justify NEAP's late filing. Therefore, Petitioners have cet the late filing- requirements of the NRC and should be granted intervention in this proceeding.
The Licensee appears to have misinterpreted Petitioners' intent l concerning the copper content contention in the Petition.
Petitione*s address here that the copper contention is based on the belief that the Licensee relied on the wrong percentage of copper content germane to the amencment ART calculations which were L
l l
jp -
. H
)
performed prior to the license i amendment during the previous pressure / temperature !
license amendment. The Licensee could not have j utilized NRC Reg. Guide 1.93 rev. 2 (1988) because it did not exist, ;
therefore the Licensee had to have utilized NRC Reg. Guide 1.99 rev. '
1 and may have calculated the ART using an incorrect copper content, These calculations appear to have been relied upon for the i
j initial fluence and ART data utilized'in part with the NRC Reg.
Guide 1.99 rev. 2, therefore the Licensee's calculations in the license amendment for the ART may be erroneous and nonconservative.
This contention from differs the Intervenors' Contention 3 which was withdrawn because that contention was based on the belief that the Licensee utilized a copper content with reliance of NRC Reg. Guide 1.99 rev. 2 in the ART calculation and not NRC Reg. Guide 1.99 rev. 1. '
It is therefore clear that Petitioners have shown good cause for a late filed Petition and should be granted intervention.
B. There Are No Other Means Available For Petitioners to Protect Their Interests !
The Licensee asserts in part in their response document that:
, "...if they believe that-in some respect the interests L sought to be asserted in the instant Petition were not in fact addressed in the Director's Decision, they are not barred from filing another petition under 10 CFR 2.206."
Petitioners address hcre that the Licensee's " boot-strap" argument to file another 10 CFR 2.206 petition is without merit.
Petitioners assert that the issues embraced within Petitioners' contentions merit the scrutiny of a public forum. Furthermore, once
- ,,w -
4 i
I a 10 CFR 2.206 petition is denied, the legal recourse of appeal does not provide proper authority to reverse the decision. ;
{
C. Petitioners Have Demonstrated That They i tiill Contribute to Develonino a Sound Record Petitioners are making all i reasonable efforts to retain Dr.
George Sih,
+
a metals fracture expert, to testify at the hearing to provide professional opinion and testimony evidencing the severity and magnitude of the radiation damage to the Turkey Point reactor vessels. Additioneily, Mr. Saporito's seven years of experience with the Licentse is relevant to the validity of the pressure / temperature i limits central to this proceeding because his testimony will introduce new evidence into this proceeding identifying the falsification willfull and destruction of safety-related plant documents at Turkey Poirt. '
This testimony therefore will evidence that the Licensee may not i operate the Turkey Point plant in compliance with NRC regulations and requirements. Additionally, Mr. Saporito's position as an Instrument and Control Special.st at the Turkey Point plant along with the Licensee's training of Mr. Saporito, Qualifies him knowledgeable of the effects of Dressure/ temperature changes to the behavior of the reactor vessels.
l' Furthermore, Mr. Saporito will provide testimony evidencing nume*ous violations of procedures at Turkey Point soms of which may directly involve safety systems 1'
germane to the reactor protection system.
Therefore, Petitioners have demonstrated that Petitioners' participation in this proceeding will contribute to the development e
~
of a sound record, and th1s factor weighs heavily in favor of granting late intervention.
D. Interests of Petitioners Are Not Reorssented by Existino Parties Petitioners' interests in this proceeding are not represented by _the existing parties. Petitioners' Content 1on 1 dealing with copper content is '
not the same as Intervenors' Contention 2 which was withdrawn on September 8, 1989. As clear y described in Petitioners' basis for Contention 1, the Licensee, in their calculation of the ART in the current license amendment, utilized Reg. Guide 1.99 rev. 2 (1988) Section 2.1.
This method of calculation does not take into consideration any Copper content of the reactor vessel's metal properties and merely provides for the use of a chemistry factor in the determination of the ART. -The Licensee freely admits that no consideration for e
copper content was utilized in the ART calculations for the current litansa amendments. The Licensee, however, did identify a copper
[
content of 0.26% as the weld metal property of the reactor vessels l and therefore apparently relied on this information in their determination of the RTNDT shift values _during their calculations of the previous P/T license amendment.
These very same results identified by the Licensee as Unit 3 1
capsule T3 of 155 degrees F, Unit 3 capsule V4 of 180 degrees F, and Unit 4 capsule T4 of 255 degrees F were in fact relied upon by the Licensee in the ART of the current license amendments thereby 1
amplifying the degree of error throughout their calculations.
+
Petitioners' Contention 2 is not the same as Intervenors' admitted Contention 2. Intervenors' Contention 2 challenges the Licensee's use of Unit 3 surveillance capsule data in the -
determination of RTwot for Unit 4 Petitioners' bas 1s for Contention 2 in the Petition clearly challenges the Licensee's compliance to the NRC regulations establishing the administration of the integrated surveillance program. The governing ;
NRC regulations clearly provide for the use of surveille,ce data from a 41ngle reactor in the determination of the RTwor for both units. The Licensee violated these NRC reQu1rements by utili21ng data from both reactor surveillance capsules.
In summary, Petitlohers are challenging the Licensee's noncompliance with NRC requirements and regulations in the administration of their integrated surveillance program and improper utilization of the surveillance data, therefore Petitioners' interests are not embraced within Intervenors' Contention 2 which challenges the Licensee's use of the integrated surveillance program ,
in its entirety by allowing surveillance capsule data from Turkey Point Unit 3 to be representative of Units 3 and 4 l
The Licensee states in part in their response document that: ,
" Petitioners' proposed Contentions 3 and 4 address upper shelf energy issues, which were also asserted by Intervenors, j However, the Licensing Board has already ruled that issues addressing Questions about upper shelf energy are outside the j scope of this proceeding."
l Petitioners address here that a careful reading of Intervenors' .
Contentione does not evidence a position for consideration of upper 1
l
1 4 I l
1 l
1 shelf I energy and instead asserts ct.allenges related to the PTS rule j in the NRC regulations. Additionally, a careful reading of the Licensing Board's ruling o
~f June 8, 1989 does not state that questions about upper shelf energy are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Indeed, the ruling clearly states that: l "We find that this issue cannot be considered in this P
hearing. The jurisdiction of the Board is founded upon the October 19, 1388 Federal Register Not1ce of Opportunity to Request Hearing. 53 F.R. 40981, 40988, (1988). A careful reading includes of the notice reveals that the subject of the hearing only a modification of pressure and temperature (P/T) ' limits during normal operat1on, governed by 10 C.F.R. 50.60, and does not include a determ1 nation of fracture tougnness requirements for Pressurized Thermal Shock which is an accident condition governed by 10 C.F.R. 50.61. This part of Petitioners
- contention is therefore beyond the scope of this hearing and cannot by admitted."
The Licensing Board's ruling clearly evidences that upper shelf energy issues relevant to the modification of the (P/T) limits of the license amendments is governed by 10 C.F.R. 50.60 which embraces Petitioners' arguments contained in Petitioners' basis for Contention 3 and 4 pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix G Section IV.B.
Therefore, Petitioners' Conte:Aions 3 and 4 should be accepted by this Licensing Board and Petitioners should be granted intervention.
Finally, the Licensee states in part in their response document that:
"... Petitioners' proposed Contention 5 adopts the arguments contained in an October 18, 1989 letter from Dr.
George Sih to Intervenors... Licensee does not believe Dr.
Sih's letter is admissible as evidence because it is not accompanied by an affidavit, it constitutes an impermissible attack upon the Commission's regulations, and it does not reise a genuine issue of material fact.
. 8
?
l Petitioners address here that Dr. Sih is an individual of d admirable qualities as a professional scientist and an expert in the field of metal fracture analysis. The Board should feel confident in accepting the arguments of Dr. Sih in h;o October 18, 1989 letter to Intervenore as being credible based soley on the signature of Dr.
Sih. Finally, Dr. Sin's letter does not constitute an attack upon '
the Commission's regulations and instead addresses other factors which should be' considered in the measurement of fracture toughness which further evidence a genuine issue of material fact. ;
E. Petitioners' Participation Will Not Undulv Delay This proceedina If Petitioners are permitted to intervene, it should not dalay '
this proceeding because Petitioners are prepared to go forward with their arguments at this time. Additionally, even if the hearing was delayed due to extensive challenges by Licenseo's counsel because ;
Petitioners were scanted intervention, the simple fact of the matter is that the license amendments have already been granted, therefore, ;
the Licensee would not be aggrieved. Therefore, since admittance of Petitioners into this proceeding will not cause undue delay, the Board should grant Petitioners intervention.
IV. Admissibility of Petitionern' ProDosed Contentions Contention 1 The Licensee states in part in their response document that: ,
"...Thus, FPL did not use any value for copper and nickel content in calculating the chemistry factor and ART for the welds and. current P/T limits for Turkey Point 'Jnits 3 and 4. In fact, the Petitioners have previously admitted that
if, i
, i the copper content of the Turkey Point reactor vessel welds was not usea in calculating the P/T limits...Therefore, not .
only is this proposed contention lacking bases, ,
it is contrary to previous statements made by Petitioners,.."
Petitioners address here that no contradiction was made to !
' previous i statements made by Petitioners concerning the use of the t copper content in the P/T calculations germane to this proceeding.
Petitioners r.cknowledge that the Licensee did not consider a copper content in their determination of the ART pursuant to NRC Reg. Guide 1.99 rov. 2 (1988).
Petitioners, however, have clearly brought to the attention of the Board in, Petitioners' basis for this contention, that the Licensee appears to have calculated the ART in the previous license amencment with due consideration of the- copper content of the reactor vessel weld materials and pursuant to NRC Reg. Guide 1.99 rev. 1. ,
1 The accuracy of these resulting calculations for data derived l from surveillance capsules Ts , V4, and T4 which was utilized in thr, current license amendments would therefore be dependent on the l
correct copper content usage by the Licensee in the previous license amendment. Petitioners assert that the Licensee admits to a copper
! content of the reactor vessel weld material to be 0.26% which j contradicts previous historical plant specific documents evidencing a much hight percentage of copper in the Turkey Point reactor vessel l
weld material.
Although no copper content was utilized in the current Licnese Amendment ART calculations, the copper content appears to have been l L c
l i
relied upon in the previouc Licnese Amendment ART calculatletas and the results of those calculaticns were ut11ized in the ART calculat1ons of the current License Amenoments. Therefore, the Licensee's calculations of the ART in the current Licensing Amendments may be nonconservative based on faulty and incorrect i
data. '
In summary, Petitioners have established a solid basis for this contention since the Licensee may have relied upon faulty and incorrect data germine to the calculation of the ART snd therefore Contention 1 should be adm1tted into this proceeding.
Contention 2 The Licensee's states in part in their response document that:
" Petitioners' proposed Contention 2 and the bases for proposed Contention 2 assert that the Licensee has incorrectly administered its integrated surveillance program purcuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix H. This issue has already been admitted into this proceeding as Intervenors' contention 2."
Petitioners address here that the Licensee is incorrect in their assumption that Petitioners' Contention 2 is embraced within Intervenors' Contention 2. Intervenors' Contention 2 challenges the Licensee's use of the integrated surveillance program itself in the utilization of capsule data from Turkey Point Unit 3' to be representative of conditions of Units 3 and 4 and suggests that the Licensee should test surveillance capsules germane to each individual unit to evaluate the RTwor shift.
Petitioners' Contention a challenges the Licensee's administration of the integrated surveillance program in that the ir I
l l
Licensee incorrectly aaministered the program i by testing '
surveillance capsules from both reactors in violation of NRC requirements and regulations which require administration of the program to t cons 1st of testing the surveillance capsules of only a single reactor in a similar i set of two reactors. This NRC requirement and regulation was intended to provide for lesc l radiation exposure to the Licensee's employees in the conduct of the !
integrated surveillance program, i Petitioners make no challenge to the Licensees' use of the integrated surveillance program within Contention 2, nor do l Petitioners challenge the Licensees' use of Unit 3 surveillance capsule data to be representative of Unit 4 conditions in Petitioners Contention 2. Therefore, Petitioners' Contention 2 should be admitted into this proceeding because Petitionerc' interests will not be addressed in Intervenors' Contention 2.
Contentions 3 and 4 The Licensee states in part in their response document that:
"Fetitioners' proposed Contentions 3 and 4 and the bases for these proposed contentions address issues concerning whether the upper-shelf energy of specimens. meets the requirements of 10 C.TR Part 50 Appendix G.IV.B. Tnese proposed contentions should be rejected because the Board ,as already ruled that issues related to upper-shelf energy are outside the scope of this proceeding,"
A careful reading of the Licensing Board's ruling of June 8, 1989 does not state that questions about upper shelf energy are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Indeed, the ruling clearly states that:
y - _ . _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- i- .
L "We find that this issue cannot be considered in this hearing. The jurlsdiction of the Board is founded upon the October 19, 1988 Federal Reaister Notice of Opportunity to Request Hearing. 53 F.R. 40981, 40988, (1988). A careful reading of the notice reveals that the subject of the' hearing includes only a modification of pressure and temperature 3 (P/T) limits during normal operation, governed by 10 C.F.R. 50.60, and does not include a determination of fracture touJhness requirements for Pressurized Thermal Shock which is an accident condition governed by 10 C.F.R. 50.61. This part of Petitioners' contention is therefore beyond the scope of '
this hearing and cannot by admitted."
The Licensing Board's ruling clearly evidences that upper shelf i- energy issues relevant to the modification of the (P/T) limits of the license amendments is governed by 10 C.F.R. 50.60 which embraces-Petitioners' arguments contained in Petitioners' basis for ,
Contention 3 and 4 pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix G Section IV.B.
~Therefore, Petitioners' Contentions 3 and 4 should be accepted by this Licensing Board and Petitioners should be granted intervention.
- Contention 5 The Licensee states in part in their response document that:
" Petitioners' proposed Contention 5 and the bases for the proposed contention assert that data for Turkey Point Unit 3 is not complete because " factors such as strain rate i and load-history dependent damage accumulation should be L considered." Petitioners base this proposed contention on an l October 18, 1989 letter from Dr. George Sih to Intervenors.
As noted earlier, Int,rvenvrs have already submitted this letter to the Board in support of Intervenors' Contention 2.
Therefore, any litigable issues in Dr. Sih's letter are already encompassed within the scope of Intervenors' exist 1ng Contention 2."
Petitioners address here that Intervenors' Conter. tion 2 does not argue the merits of Petitioners' Contention 5. Indeed, Intervenors' Contention 2 challenges the Licensee's Intergrated Surveillance program and Petitioners' Contention 5 asserts that l
T l l
1 while too pressure / temperature limits depend on the combined effects )
of matcrial properties, operating temperature and neutron irrad1ation change in strain rate can significantly affect the fracture toughness and shift in RTwor. This influence has not been j taken into account in determining the pressure / temperature limits.
Therefore, Petitioners' interests are not ombraced within Intervenors' Contention 2 and Petitioners' Contention 5 should be P
admitted into this proceeding.
V. Conclusion For all the aforementioned reasons, and in the interest of !
public safety and the environment as a whole, Petitioners should be granted leave to intervene in this proceeding. Petitioners have demonstrated their standing to intervene, Petitioners have i substantially r4st the requirements for a late filed petition, and ,
l none of Petitioners' proposed contentions have been or are being l- assorted in this proceeding by the Interver. ors. Therefore lete intervention should be granted by the Licensing Board.
Respectfully submitted,
&a Thomas J. Sapori n
Jr.
Executive Direc r, NEAP Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 1202 Sioux Street l Jupiter, Florida 33458 l (407) 740-0770 Dated this 16th day of November 1989 in Jupiter, Florida.
1
= -- -- ,--,.e- , ,
j
'i i
'? ';[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 89 8 21 P4 :22 l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
{ rs l LOCd ' . [.
In the Matter of ) B'b-l
) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-4 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-4
)
(Turkey Point Units 3 and 4) ) (Pressure / Temperature Limits) ,
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Petitioners' " Clarification of Contentions and Answer to Licensee's Response in Oppnsition to NEAP /Saporito Petition For Leave to Intervene" has beeri served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class, properly stamped and adaressed on the date shown below.
Hon. B. Paul Cotter, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Hon. Glenn O. Bright
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pr.nal U.S. Nuclear Reglatory Commission Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 Hon. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington s P.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Serv 1ce Section
- s l 4
Joette Lorion, Director .!
Center for Nuc'eear Responsibility :
7210 Red Road #217 '
Miami. Florida 33143 Janice Moore Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washit;gton, D.C. 20555 i Richard Goddard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., N.W. #2900 ]
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ,
John T. Butler Steel, Hector & Davis 4000 Southeaat Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131 Dated thia 16th day of Novembor, 1989 in Jupiter, Florida.
l <
, w? 4 c Thomas J. apor o, Jr.
Executive Director, NEAP Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, Florida 33458 l
l l
l l
{
u l
l l l' *
-. .-