ML20006C479
| ML20006C479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1990 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), NUCLEAR ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9797 90-602-01-OLA-5, OLA-5, NUDOCS 9002080093 | |
| Download: ML20006C479 (9) | |
Text
I a.
Scy'h9'l l
DOCKETED 1
February 5fYh90 l
30 FEB -6 M2:05 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OfNCE OF SECRElARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CM[I NG i HVICE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges-
,8ERVED FEB 0 6D Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. George-C. Anderson Elizabeth B. Johnson In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-5
'50-251-OLA-5 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Technical Specifications Turkey Point Plant Replacement (Unit Nos. 3 and 4)
Facility Operating ASLBP:No. 90-602-01-OLA-5 Licenses Nos. DPR-31, DPR-41 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
(Prehearing Conference; Filing Schedule) l We welcome all the participants to this proceeding.-
It is cur commitment to preside fairly and efficiently, and with concern for public safety, pursuant-to the constitu-tion, the statutes, the regulations and applicable-judicial and administrative decisions.
We expect to listen atten-
~
tively and to decide carefully.
1 We urge the participants to join us in this spirit'of respect, both for one another and for the Board.-
The more
~
cooperative the parties are with one another and the more carefully and atteatively they prepare their filings, the easier it will be for us to fulfill our commitments and for the parties to develop a relationship that may. permit them 9002000093 900206 ~
[DR ADOCK 05000250 PDR 5 0 tu-
Y.
1
+
V e
'- i to avoid unnecessary procedural disputes and to settle all or part of their controversy voluntarily.
We encourage voluntary settlement both because of the avoidance of the expense of litigation and because the terms of settlement 1
often are more satisfactory than can be achieved through litigation.
10 C.F.R. S 2.759.
History of the Proceeding This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established by Order of the chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, on January 24, 1990, pur-suant to a notice published by the commission on December 5, 1989 in the Federal Reaister (54 F.R.50295) entitled, " Con-sideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity for Hearing."
The proposed amend-ments would replace the current custom Technical Specifica-tions licensed in the early 1970s with a setiof Technical Specifications based on the Westinghouse Standard-Technical Specifications.
On December 27, 1989, Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr.,
filed a-timely " Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene" (Petition) on. behalf of himself as an individual and of the Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (NEAP)-
(" Petitioners").
On January 10, 1990, Florida Power & Light
5 1
3.-
1 i
Company (Applicant ) filed " Licensee's Answer in Opposition l
to Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene" (Applicant Answer).
On January 16, 1990, the Staff of.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission opposed the petition in its "NRC' Staff Response to Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene of Nuclear Energy Accountability Project and Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr."E(Staff Answer).
[
Analysis We have reviewed the documents, all of which bear the mark of thoughtful preparation.
It is our impression that Applicant and the Staff have paid particularly careful attention to the law, with which they are more familiar than are Petitioners, who appear without legal counsel.- We urge Petitioners to study the Applicant Answer.and the Staff i
Answer and to cure whatever deficiencies exist by amending their petition.
In particular, we agree with Applicant and Staff that this proceeding does not address the continued operation of Turkey Point.
These plants are licensed to operate and their operation will not be affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
'Although Florida Power & Light Co. is the holder of operating licenses for the two units involved in this proceeding, its role in this oroceedina is as an applicant for an amendment to its license.
4
i 4
The subject matter of this proceeding.is the proposed amendments to the plants' technical specifications.
In that light, although petitioners must comply with all the regu-lations referenced'in the Notice.of Hearing, we cite an important portion of that Notice:
As required by 10 CFR 2.714,.a petition for leave to intervene shall set'forth-with carticu-larity the interest of the petitioner in the pro-ceeding, and how that interest,may be affected by-L the results of the croceedina.
[ Emphasis-added.)
3 We interpret this requirement, at this time, as requiring petitioners to show that they are affected by the l
proposed amendment to the technical specifications.'
The principal question regarding the granting of the Application would appear to be its compliance with Commission regula-tions.
For the purpose of showing that they are adversely affected, petitioners do not need.to set forth a documented basis for their concern; but their concern.should be stated 2Federal Register Notice, 54 Federal Register 50205 (December 8, 1989).
3We are reaching this conclusion tentatively as-we have.
not been briefed on this point by Petitioners, who may file a brief together with their amended petition should they choose to do so.
'We recommend that petitioners become familiar with an excellent discussion of standing found in Consumers Power ComDany (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-79-20, 10 NRC 108 (1979).
They-should not, however,. rely on that case's discussion of the admissability of contentions, as the regulations on admitting contentions have.been changed.
(See footnote 7, below.)
4 e
w.
u
=
4
. J with particularity and related to specific proposed changes 1
L in the technical specifications.5 j
Until petitioners state their concern with particular-ity,' we do not have an opinion concerning whether a 50 mile zone of interest is an appropriate test for standing in this case.
Florida Power & Licht Co. (St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-89-21, 30 NRC (slip op, p. 6) (November 30, 1989).
We suggest that petitioners address each argument made by Applicant and Staff, either by filing requested clarifica-tions of their evidentiary position or through' rebuttal-legal argument or both, i
j Schedule l
We shall require petitioners to serve their conten--
l 7
tions and amended petition by express mail on Tuesday, Feb-Son January 29, 1990, the Board requested copies of the Application for amendment dated June 5 and November 3, 1989.
At this time, we have not seen the Application and have no opinion about the nature or existence of a risk: resulting from the proposed amendment.
'We are not now deciding whether one or more of the concerns may already be stated with enough particularity.
It is of course not necessary "to establish, as a precondition to intervention (with respect to the interest test], that [a petitioner's] concerns are well-founded in fact."
Vircinia Electric and Power Comnany (North Anna Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979).
7Note that the contentions requirements, as set forth in the Notice of Hearing, were the result of a recent amendment to the procedural rules.
As the notice states, Each contention must consist of a specific state-ment of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted.
In addition, the petition shall
'1 J
I
~6-i ruary 20, 1990.8 A limited appearance session is antici-pated at 7 pm to 10:00 pm on the evening of March 22, 1990, at the U.S.
District Courthouse, Old Building, Central 1
Courtroom, 300 NE ist Ave., Miami, Florida.'
A Prehearing Conference is planned for 9:00 am on March 23, 1990, at the provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of.the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the conten-tion and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at-the hearing.
The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and docurents of which the peti-tiener is aware and on which the petitioner in-tends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
Petitioner must provide sufficient in-formation to show that a genuine dispute' exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments under consi-deration.
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief.
A petitioner who fails to file such a_ supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
aservice may be executed by any overnight mail service or by fax.
The Board's Washington fax number is: 301-492-7285.
In lieu of overnight service, parties may serve documents first-class mail, postmarked four days earlier (February 16).
Judge Anderson's temporary address, until March 14, 1990, is 450 Vista Chino, Apt. 2015, Palm Springs, CA 92262.
Thereafter, it is 7719 Ridge Dr., NE, Seattle, WA 98115.
' Rescheduling may be necessary should the prehearing conference conflict with a trial tentatively scheduled for the same place but considered very likely to be delayed.
N
)
- o..-
t,
same location.
(Motte.4s for a change in these times may be i
I filed promptly.)"
The filing deadline diverges from that contained in the regulations for operating license cases.
This divergence'is a long-established practice of licensing boards, which have found that the< ordinary regulatory schedule results in-un-productive "special" prehearing conferences because the Applicant's response is due within five. days of the i
"Special" Prehearing conference and the Staff response l
(permitting time for service) shortly after the "Special"-
Prehearing Conference.
Since a' purpose of the conference is to permit petitioners to rebut the arguments filed agaistst-them, this does not provide adequate time within which they 1
(and the Board) may study the arguments and prepare-for the Prehearing.
Sag 10 CFR S 2.711(a); Houston _Lichtina and Power Comoany.(Allens Creek)'ALAB-564, 10 butC 451.- (1979) ;
General Electric Co. (GETR Vallecitos), LBP-83-19,'17'NRC 573, 578 (1983).
Although there is no obligation to do so, we urge-Applicant, Staff and Petitioners to cooperate with one another during Petitioners' analysis of the technical specifications.
If a positive, responsive, informal atmos--
phere can be established at this early date, petitioners l
" Applicant's response shall be served overnight or by fax or hand by March 5.
Staff's response by March 9.
(Service by ordinary mail must be postmarked four days before the deadline.)
L
4 t
.O 1
- 1 will become more informed of the merits of their concerns and may. focus their case on serious problems, if they exist.
A fruitful discussion at this time may avoid unnecessary procedural disputes later-in the case and may lead to a i
l settlement of all or part of this case, either now or-at some time in the future, l
l l-FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD
' l-t, Peter B.
Bloch Chair Bethesda, Maryland 1
UN3TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I
I
. i FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY l
Docket No.(s) 50-250/251-OLA-5 (Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos. 3 & 4) I l
l CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O (Prehearing Conf...)
have been served upon the f ollowing persons by U.S. mail, first class,' except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of to CFR Sec. 2.712.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board Peter B. Bloch,. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulato'ry Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge George C. Anderson Elizabeth B. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing-Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington,'DC 20555-l Patri:la Jehle, Esquire Steven F. Frant, Esquire-i Office of the General Counsel Newman & Holtzinger,.P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC, 20036.
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
Executive Director Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, FL 33450 Dated at Rockville, Md. this f
6 day of February 1990 0 fice of the-Secretary of the Commission l
l
<r
=
--w-
-