ML20034C249
| ML20034C249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1990 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10300 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9005020223 | |
| Download: ML20034C249 (13) | |
Text
..n q zy,.
,, e-7,
'4Y
- UNITED' STATES ' OF ! AMER.(CA '
m ED -
'f
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
4 DOCK [RC -.
t s
us i
Before the Atomiv2SafetyEand) Licensing /Boardi FR 30 P5 :00
[ Int tihe Matter, of
)'
i,.
)-
- wr of SECliCMN THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMLNATING-J' 4g[Uh i.
')~ Docket'NoP S
- (PerryiNuclear Power. Plant, Unit ~1)?
~)
).
_)
g.
OCRE-FILING OPL CONTENTION AND L RESPONSEL"'O ' LICENSEE AND NRC STAFF ANSWERS TO'OCHES PETITION POR' LEAVE,TOLINTERVENE-3 -
Pursuant-to the Atomic Safety.and Licensing l Board's'.
qa Memorandum 'and Order '(Scheduling Filing Lof1Contentien) of - April) y 2,
1990, petitioner Ohio Citizens forfResponsibletEnergy, Inc.
("OCRE") hereby files the contention-it-intends;to ' litigate in this proceeding and responds to the arguments.made'by.the' j
t m
Licensees and NRC Staff in their answers to-OCRE's intervention
~
= petition.
}
j I.
CONTENTION
[
i OCRE proposes that the follow 1.ng cont'ention-be'admittedL-to this. proceeding:
'f f
y n
"The--Licensee's proposed amendment'toiremove-cycle-specific
< parameter ^11mits and other cycle-specific fuel-1nformation froni
'the-plant Technical-Specifications,to the. Core'OperatingiLimits'
?Reportsviolates Sectione109a of'the Atomic' Energy:Act.(42'CSC 9
'L2239a)'::inithat11t deprivus members of che public of the right g
Lto noticetand.opportenity for' hearing on any changes to'the-cycle'-specific-parameters and - f uel information.
1
+
_s 9005020223 900423 1
pp.
Q l' / I
'D41 1
10 CPR 2. 714 (b) (2 ) requires petitioners to set forth the following information when filing a contention: (i) a brief explanation of the bases of the contention; (ii) a concise statement of the alleged facts supporting the contention; and (iii) sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
With the instant contentior., these factors are inextricably intertwined and therefore are addressed together below.
On December 19, 1989 the Cleveland Electric illuminating Company filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a request for an amendment to Apt.endix A of the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
The requested amendment would remove cycle-specific core operating limits and other cycle-specific fuel information from thc. plant Technical Specifications.
Instead, this information would be placed in the Core Operating Limits Report, to be part of the Plant Data Book.
The specific patameters and Technical Specification sections m.fected are Maximust Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) and M A Pl. h G R Power and Plow Factor parametric curves, Section 3.2.1; Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) and MCPR Power and Flow Factor Parametric Curves, Section 3.2.2; Linear Heat Generation Rate (LGHR), Section 3.2.3; fuel design description, Sectiun 5.1<1, and associated Bases.
A new section 6.9.1 9 would be adced to the Technical f
Specifications.
This section would estab3ich that core 2
i
' operatin'g " limits are -to(be-documented in the. Core Operatiing n
Limits! Report';
that the analytical methods >used to determine f
4 the core ~ operating limits shall:be _those previouslyireviewed and approved by the NRC; and that the. Core Operating Limits,-
Report, and any_ revisions or supplements thereto,1sha'll-be provided to the NRC upon_ issuance.
The Licensees ~ concede that this amendment will have?the effect of " eliminating the. majority of-license; amendment-Y
- requests 1for; changes in values of cycle-specific? parameters _in:
TechnicalDSpecifications."- Attachment-l'to Dec. 19, 1989 T
amendment request, p.
5.
It-_is precisely this effect that OCRE=
findsJobjectionable.
The core operating limits subject to this amendment request have traditionally been part of the-Technical:
Specifications and could not be changed-without notice in:the Federal Register and opportunity for a hearing,cas~ required by Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.
If this amendment-is-granted {
the' Licensees will be able to changefthe; core operating 11imits without any public notice or opportunity-for-participation._.The NRC will still receive notice of any revisionscto the Core Operating'Uimits Report; the NRC's jurisdiction and enforcement powers are not diminished by'the-proposed amendment.
The only real effect of this amendment is that the_public is excluded from the process.
This is contrary to the intent of Congress and the-interpretation of the Atomic Energy-Act by the Courts. Section o
189a of the A'.L'ic Energy Act states that " (i) n any proceeding 3
1
-r und'er-this-Act'for the granting, suspending,Jrevoking, or amending anyLlicense:or construction" permit
. ; the-Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person-whose interest 1may be'affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such~ person as a' party to such proceeding." Operating-
, license amendment proceedings under the Act are' formal, on-theSrecord adjudicatory' proceedings, conducted pursuant to the NRCisirulesLof' practice in 10'CPR~Part 2, where the parties
- : :b haveitheiopportunity to;present evidence and' cross-examine witnesses... Review of initial decisions is available within the
-NRC bystherAtomic Safety and Licensing-Appeal' Board and by the Commission.
Judicial; review of' final orders in operating license amendmentLproceedings is clearly established by:
statute.
Atomic Energy Act, Section 189b; Administr- !ve Orders Review Act, 28 USC 2342(4).
The Atomic Energy Act reflects a strong. Congressional intent to' provide-for meaningful public participation'..
" Congress vested in the public, as well as the NRC Staff, a' role in assuring safe operation of nuclear power plants." Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 P.2d 1437, 1447_(D.C. Cir.
1984).
If this amendment is approved, _the only mechanism available.for public participation is through 10 CPR 2.206.-
However, this option does not_ provide meaningful participation, nor does it measure up to the type of proceeding afforded by Section 189a.
This regulation permits.any. person to file a-requdst with the appropriate staff director seeking to 4
s.\\-
d h
.- ll c
3
w v.
w
.,7, u, a
[*
', 7l
+
' t y
1 g:
i3
?< ;,
(,g instihut'e{ a?:.proceedihg;.to suspend l. revoke,'or modify'.a license,.
orsfor N5yfo hersactionLwhich may;beEappropriate..10 CPR 2.206l
- f does notLgive the requester the right to a. hearing, and simply filing a request _.under section 2.206 does not.give'.the' requester the rightTtoLpresent evidence'and cross-examine witnesses.
-There'is no right.under section 2.206 to appellate review within the agency; whi-le the Commission, Eat its own discretion,:may review'a director's decision,-petitions for review of same areinot to be entertained.
10-CPR-2.206(c). As the'D.C.-Circuit has ruled, a.2.206' request is not a Section 189a proceeding.--Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 P.2d.
.1 1437, 1443-4 (D.C.'Cir. 1984).
Most'significantly, judicial review is not available for-i denials of 2.206: petitions.- OCRE v. NRC, No. 88-1676 (D.C.
1 q
Cir., Jan. 23, 1990)' (attached); Safe Energy Coalition'of
.j i
Michigan v. NRC,.866 P.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1989);-Arnow v. NRC,.
i 868 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1989); Massachusetts Public Interest Research. Group V.
NRC, 852 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1988).
These
]
'decisionsE avelheld that 2.206 denials are net reviewable
]
h because they aret" committed to. agency discretion.by Iaw."
5 USC 701]a)M2)i Tnis provision of the' Administrative Procedure j
}
Act w'aslinterpreted by the Supreme Court in Ileckler v. Chaney, 470U.S.[821L(1985),.toincludethoseagencyactions-inwhich the governing? statute provided no meaningful standards for 1
judicial review.
j This amendment request violates the Atomic Energy Act in p.;
that changes to' cycle-specific parameters, with their tacit j
.g
'i 5
il i
sil
3 7-n will bei e, facto l'icense-amendments, but sapprovalbbyithe NRC, d
will noti b if'ormallyflabeled:asi-license amendmentsia~nd-noticed,:
?
as;such in:the Federal' Register!with-opportunity ~forfa. hearing.'
! Licensees are trying toievade themclear mandate of-the. Atom'ic t
EnergyrAct byfcalling these amendments by another name to avoid-invokingethe-notice.and-hearing provisions of the'Act.
However',f thel. law: cannot: be. coi easily evaded.
Section1189a0, requiresinotibecandl opportunity foruhearing on dj facto 111 cense:
i
-amendmentsfascwell'as,for'those-actions explicitly. labeled aso s..
i.
" amendments.: AsMtho'D.C.HCircuit has held, man;. action whichi s
l grants:iaplicIns'ee ? thei authority to ' do" someth'ing :it - otherwiseL L.,
,w%
couldi otihaverdone under the existingJ1icense-authority'is.af n
_ Jn i, 1
+.
- license? amendmentj within-the meaning 'of the AtomicL Energy J Act.:
.ShollyIv2 NRC",,651;F.2d 780,.791-(1980), vacated-on:other W.
. grounds',44 3 510. S. 3119 4 - (19 8 3 ).
See also, Commonwealth'of-V
~
Massachusetts v. NRC, 878 F.2d 1516, 1521 (1st Cir.-1989): 1"the '
particular; label place'd upon--(its action) by the : Commission -is-not necessarily: conclusive, for it.is the substance:of.what the;
~
Commission has purported to do and has done whichLis decisive,"
D citing Columbia Broadcasting-System,.Inc.'v. United States, 316) il U.S.
407, 416 (1942).
Changes to core operating limits,.with tacit approval by
,i the NRC,.wil1 give Licensees the authority to operate'in-ways in which'they otherwise could not..Thus, they are de facto
-license amendments, and the public'must have notice and i
1 opportunityf,to request'a' hearing., Anything less'is in violation'ofS itior
'tomic Energy Act.
Licensees /
J t i
+
v%
e t
- !? :,..
~ >
dh, f.lN.
g, ;
su:.
7_,
~
f
~
i s
4 claimLtha [the' proposed amendment will provide a resource savings +for both.themselves and the NRC.
However, the'D.C.
. Circuit hhsiaddressed1the question-of whether the NRC may. limit-public participation in the interest of making the process more efficient.
The-Court held that it may.not.. Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 P.2d at 1444-1447.
OCRE asksEthe-Licensing Board'to issue declaratory and injunctive relief by~ declaring'the proposed amendment to be in violation.of the~ Atomic Energy Act and by denying the amendment
-request.
II. RESPONSE TO CEI AND NRC STAFF ANSWERS Both the Licensees and the NRC Staff claim that OCRE's intervention petition should be denied due to OCRE's purported-lack of standing.
Since OCRE's contention raises only an issue of law, they assert that no injury-in-fact exists within the zone of interests established by the. Atomic Energy Act.
Licensees cite a variety of casea'which they believe establish ~that interest in legal rights does not' meet judicial i
standing requirements, which require injury that is distinct I
and palpable, not abstract, conj'sctural or hypothetical.
Warth f
- v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
490 (19 7 5 )'; Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S.
737 (1983);'Los A'ng'eles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.
95 (1983); O'Shea v.
i Littleton,-41410.S. 488 (1974).
Nor is judicial standing acquir a byJasserting "the right, possessed by every citizen, I
to require ~that the Government be administered according to i
s law."
Dellums v. NRC, 863 P.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
~ i l
7 1
i
llowever,1 Licensees.have selectively read these cases.
. Contrary [toiLicensees interpretation, Warth_ clear establishes that "the' actual or threatened injury required by Art. III may
. exist. solely byl virtue of ' statutes. creating legal rights, the j
invasion of which creates standing 422 U.S.
at 500 (citation omitted). " Congress may create a statutory-right'of q
i entitlement the alleged: deprivation of which can confer j
standing to Jue even where-the plaintiff would have-suffered no judicially cognizable injury in the absense-of statute."
422-
-l 3
U.S. at 514 (citation omitted).
O'Shea likewise acDowledges-
,i this principle.
414 U.S.
at 493, n.
2.
Dellums also cannot support Licensee's claim.
D,ellums concerned alleged violations by.the NRC of the Comprehensive q
Anti-Apartheid;Act of 1986.
Clearly, none of the petitioners 1
in that case could establish any' specific injury because "the only injury alleged la widely-held, non-quantifiable, and of a
{
political or ideological nature."
De?lums, 863 P.2d at 972.
Indeed, in a case such as Dellums concerning foreign policy issues, such " injuries" are all that can be claimed.
llowever, OCRE's interest in this proceeding-does not
- 1
~
i concern. political or. ideological-issues.
Rather, OCRE has met j
the standard of Warth in that the amendment sought by Licensees j
l would depriyejOCRE of a statutorily-created right.
l 1
As'the:NRC Staff has correctly noted, Dellums has established that a petitioner must affirmatively address three-j factors to show standing: '( 1 ) the petitioner-has personally
' I suffe'ed or will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that r
8 i
_.........m
y, constitutes' injury-in-fact; (2)' the~ injury can be traced to the challenged actionj and (3)Lthe: injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable decision.
Dellums,'863 P.2d at 971.
Staff also notes that the injury must be within the zone of interests protected'b'y the' Atomic Energy Act.
Staff Answer at 3.
OCRE;has' met.all of these standards.
Right now, any changas to~-the PNPP core _ operating limits must be accomplished through.a;1icense amendment, with the attendant notice and opportunity for hearing.
OCRE would have-the opportunity to intervene!in^the operating license amendment proceeding, to presentzeyldence-and: cross-examine witnesses, and to file a petition}for'reviewofanyfinal'orderinthatproceedingwith.
the Court [ofLAppeals.
If the: proposed araendment to.. remove the core operating. limits from the Technical Cpecifications is l
approved,s allVthese rights, established by Congress in Section
~
i 189a of the: Atomic Energy Act,'will be taken away.
Licensees concede as much when they admitted in their application that this amendment will have the effect of " eliminating the majority of-license anaendment requests for changes in values of l
cycle-specific parameters in Technical Specifications."
This injury is real, distinct, and palpable.
It is not aypo-i thetical', conjectural or abstract.
Moreover, the injury is obviously. traceable to the challenged action and can clearly be remedied-by a favorable decision.
Purthermore, this injury is within the zone of interests i
established by Congress in the Atomic Luergy Act.
Meaningful l
i public participation in NRC license amendment proceedings is
+
9 i
q s
ono of the goals of the Act.
As-the D.C. Circuit has-sol forcefully stated, " Congress vested in the public,sas-wellia's.
~
the NRC Staff, a role in assuring safe' operation of nuclear, power plants."
Union of Concerned-Scientists:v. NRC,'735'E.2d5 1437, 1447 (D.C. Cir. 1984)..
V Incredibly, both CEI and the NRC Staff: assert thati10]CFRl
.:.206providesanadequatemechanism._foranychallenges{6oNeore
' ' L.
' I operating limits in the future.
As(pointedcout'aboveysection- -
y
,4.,.
isawoefu11yinadequatemechanismwhich/doesin$tsmeet 2.206
.. :. l the requirements of a Section 189e, hearing 1 TheLunavailability of judicial review.especiallyrenders(2.'206ameaningless[
option.
For example, if thi.= amendment is. granted,;OCREIcould?
try to assert that any. changes in the Core Operating' Limits Report are d3 f acto amendments and-'reqtiest -a h' earing.. ' However,-
- l s
y such a hearing request would.be treated.as a 2.206lp.etition by-
]
the Commission, even if it were not so labeled..With9,4 i
classification as a 2.206 petition comes the': lack;ofLj di'clal" a
review.
O( RE would never hcVe the opportunity. to1 present Lthis!
issue before the Court of Appeals.
Clearly, this i's a^ matter-i
~
which must be decided now or not at all.
If~the requestedL
~
amendment is granted without affording OCRE theLopportunity.to" challenge its legality at_this time, OCRE will suffer irreparable injury v;hich cannot be redressed by future legal remedies.
This situation meets ihe basic' requisites'of the; issuance of equitable relief in these circumst'ances: the; 1
likelihood'of substantial-and immediate irreparable, injury, and.
j the inadequacy of remedies at law."
O'Shea, 414 U.S.-fat 502".
.h
, u v
14 '
8 j; &
10
~ 3:M o
w(fN m
E f
(
+
7
4., r q;p s
's t.
g:-
a.,
u
_-See also Lyons, 4 6 1 7,0. S.._ a t '1 0 3.
4 III.' CONCLUSION.-
. For-_the; foregoing reasons, OCRE has met;.the standing' requirementsEand should be admitted as a party _to-this-
.b proceeding.. OCRE?s contention should'also be admitted and-1itigated~in-this' proceeding'.
i Respectf ully.i submitted,
F Susan L.
liia tt '
OCRE Representative _
^
j 8275 Munson Road Mentor, 011 44060 s
(216) 255-3158 DATED:,J MN Nb, N7d st
-1
.e
- s f _'
y i
4 4
l
.g e
11 a
5
- - ~~ *']
j n
. '..,., /~s1* O ?. h.
L 1 j$.V R l
- y..,
.l JinitchJiates @ourt of pypea as Mt49 1
Fot TMt Di$fRICT of COLUMBIA CleCUlT L
No.88-167s
- September Term,19 89' l
Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.,
gn g,g ggg{0$ Court 0f Appeal $i Petitioner-For tM Disulctof Columble Circuit; V.
A FilD 9AN 2 3119903 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission'and the; United States of America, CONsIANCE 12.DUERb -
Re ndentsi g
1 M.>
m PETITION. FOR REVIEW OF. AN ORDER ~ :( '
OF THE NUCLEAR REGUIATORY( COMMISSION, ;d N.. :
W
' 3Q4 >
" m,;
Mikva, Silberman,.an'd.Buckley, Circuit'Jud eil.Td (%e, Before:
wj
- ~y;x~gj{
r c
i fj,pp
.i J U D G M'E~N Ti
, n OWhkw.
This case was considered-on; petition [fordreviewtof?anFordeE of the Nuclear Regulatory Comr.4.swioni("NRC"),0landf onMiIifsTfiled;,
D by the parties and argument by counsel'. ' = The?:courtYhisidiitiaimined.
that the' issues presentedoccasionLno"needTfo nanYopinib W SggD D.C. Cir. R. - 14 (c).
}%y$gf q
We affirm the decision of the NRC de' ying. petitioner [sirequest; n
for the institution of enforcement proceodings,.; ; pursuant 0to ;101 l
L C.F.R. 2.206, against the owners andLoperators of thelPerrytNuclear 7
Power plant.in Ohio.
As this court.heldLin'S,g.Le-Enerav Coalitioni l
v. NRC, 8 66 F. 2 d 14 7 3 ' ( D. C. Cir. L 1989 ) ', Ldenials. byJ the NRClof 2. 2 061 enforcement requests are not reviewable by-articleTIIIncourtsiin) the absence of judicially manageable statutory,:f.; regulatory, j or,
agency standards.
Having found no such ? standards: implicatedfin:
L this case, it is'
' hm 4
w
,7 ORDEREDandADJUDGED'that'the1petitioniforireviAwsis(deniedb It is v-o FURTdER ORDERED, by the court, : 3MA: sponte, (thati$he ' Clerk l
4 shall withhold issuance of the ' mandate 1herein:: until'seven? days:
after disposition of any timely petition 1for retiearingi ;33.g:D.C; Cir.
R.
15' (August 1,
1987)...
This ' instruction" to Etheiclerk Jis L without prejudice'to the right of any party at.any1 time;to.nove' for -
expedited issuance of the mandate 1for good'cause shown.'
A
'Per curlem
- F the.courti
-/; ~
7 onstance ::L.. D ev J
l Clerk y
e t
d y,g.
- N
.x -
.a
4 A-u.
6 1
3 J-CERTIPICATE OP SERVICE s
. a
- > ' W.
ng 1,certifyhthat copies of the foregoing were. served by age ;9 f
t-in the^U','S M Mail,; firat class,1 postage prepaid, this 2f;.L day of; iAcorEi 19907to the'following:
- /%g;cm x..g. wa n-
'90 APR 30 P5 :01 s
Secretarytofithe' Commission ATTH:-Doc);etingt and Service Branch Of f lCE 0F SECR[1ARY U.S.~N_uc,1)arfRegulatory' Commission 00cKElgtg.yjEHvlCI.
Washingtonf-DC2120555'
..s 4 d ra b.-
..+~.,1.2,., - m.
Adel'ni triff,. -pJQudge' Administrative Judge.
JohdIS IffJt Gll[ Licensing > Board -
Chatraan.
Jerry R. Kline Atom (G detRend:
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
U. S [p, Je9ulat'ory' Commission U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission
' Wash
,20555f1 Washington, DC 20555
- 3 u
kg;;
K' A 1
&+
{'flC,,,!'
Ade)
,udgej*
Colleen Woodhead. Esquire Freg
,h9 Office of the General Counsel H
)$pM f,
Atom
.t.icensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission-
.]
U.Sy gul'atcryCogetssion:
. Washington, DC 20b55
.j
.Washd
'20555E hy 3
Jay 4 SD g,grg y s
_y ihan"jQittagnfjPotts 4 Trowbridge 2300N;6tr(e,tCN.W.
s WashingtoNDC'20037
.f
+
- a r
i i
i d 7 w,[
MwgvA n
-c Susan L.
Hiatt "Di/
.;,;.a; +.
'OCRE Representative
{
.i.
s-t j
8 3'
(
gg i '
8
- i
(,
z}w!s
- x
- ', [.
u l
~
?
w 2 :o 1