ML20043D675
| ML20043D675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1990 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10435 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9006110053 | |
| Download: ML20043D675 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- h UNITED STATES OP AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED l USNRC
, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board r /[; In the Matter of ) % JN -6 P2 :48 L )
Tile CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) ,-f g ,c: 3 y 3 gg y / COMPANY, CT AL. ) Docket No. 50-449aOLA,c .Lovn
) N:t@!
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit. 1) )
)
_.) OCRE RESPONSE TO LICENSEE AND NRC STAPP ANSWERS TO OCRE'S CONTENTION The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Responses to OCRE's Contention) of May 1, 1990 ordered the Licensee and the NRC Staff to respond to the contention which OCHE filed on April 23, 1990. The Board also permitted petitioner Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. s ("OCRE") to reply to these responses no later than June 1. The Licensees decided not to obey the Board's Order, preferring--instead to reference their argument, that OCRE lacks standing, raised in their March 23 Answer. " Licensees are not at this time setting forth their substantive response to OCRE's proposed contention. Such response would be premature." Licensees' Answer to OCRE's Contention at 2. Ilowever, Licensees do concede that OCRE's contention
" meets the requirements of 10 CPR 2.714 (b) (2) , and, as indicated by OCRE, raises a purely legal issue." Id. Thus, Licensees agree that OCRE has submitted an admissible contention, should the Board find that OCRE has the requisite 1
9006110653 900601 DR ADOCKODOOgO f3 e
}0435 I UNITED STATES OP AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) 30 JJ -6 P2 :48
)
Tile CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) .rtirrPF F SOA0Y COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-4 4 Q A OljAC - . LINK L
) H:I tOi (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) )
)
)
OCRE RESPONSE TO LICENSEE AND NRC STAPP A.1SWERS TO OCRE'S CONTENTION The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Responses to OCRE's Contention) of May 1, 1990 ordered the Licensee and the NRC Staff to respond to the contention which OCRE filed on April 23, 1990. The Board also permitted petitioner Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. s ("OCRE") to reply to these responses no later than June 1. The Licensees decided not to obey the Board's Order, preferring instead to reference their argument, that OCRE lacks standing, raised in their March 23 Answer. " Licensees are not at this time setting forth their substantive response to OCRE's proposed contention. Such response would be premature." Licensees' Answer to OCRE's Contention at 2. Ilowever, Licensees do concede that OCRE's contention
" meets the requirements of 10 CPR 2. 714 (b) (2) , and, as indicated by OCRE, raises a purely legal issue." Id. Thus, Licensees agree that OCRE has submitted an admissible contention, should the Board find that OCRE has the requisite 1
9006110053 900601 peO3 j DR ADOCK0500ggo
1 standing to participate in this proceeding. The NRC Staff, on the other hand, makes the bizarre assertions that "OCRE has not raised an issue of fact or law concerning the instant amendment request" (NRC Staf f Response at.4), "no effort is made by OCRE to comply with 10 CPR
- 2. 714 (b) ( 2) " (Id. at footnote 3), and " simply put, OCRE has not set forth, as required by 10 CPR 2.714, a contention related to the current, proposed license amendment" (Staff Response at 8).
The NRC Utaff also exceeds the bounds of the Board's May 1 Order by.not just responding to OCRE's contention, but also by responding to the arguments made by OCRE in its April 23 filing regarding the standing question. The Board's May 1 Order very clearly states that Licensees and the Staff were to respond to OCRE's contention, not to the standing arguments. The-Staff has taken two cracke at bat when one would suffice. OCRE regards the portion of the Staff's Reponse addressing the standing issue to be an unauthorized filing, and does not respond to it herein. In any event, it is OCRE's opinion that nothing in the Staff's Response undermines OCRE's standing arguments raised in its April 23 pleading. In' support of its absurd conclusions regarding the admissibility of OCRE's contention (made all the more unreasonable by the finding of Licensees, the requester of the license amendment at issue here, that the contention is admissible), the Staff attempts to distinguish the cases cited
-by OCRE in support of its legal argument. NRC Staff Response 2
I at 4-5. Regardless of the specific factual backgrounds ot these cases, the fact remains that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in sholly v. NRC, 651 P.2d 780 (1980), vacated on other grounds, 435 U.S. 1194 (1983), clearly found that an order which " granted the licensee authority to do something that it otherwise could not have done under the existing license authority" was a license amendment under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. 651 P.2d at 791. I.e., it matters not what the NRC calls a particular action; it is its effect that determines whether it is an amendment triggering the notice and hearing provisions of the Act. This reasoning was followed by the First Circuit in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC, 878 P.2d 1516, 1521 (1st Cir. 1989). The Staff states that Sholly does not apply'to this proceeding, since OCRE was afforded an opportunity for hearing. Ilowever, this ignores the fact that the outcome of this proceeding will determine whetner OCRE will retain the right to a hearing under the Atomic Energy Act for future changes to core operating limits. Sholly provides the legal precedent upon which OCRE's contention is based. If the instant amendment is granted, changes to core operating limits will constituto de facto license amendments under Sholly, but there will be no notice and opportunity for hearing, in violation of the Atomic Energy Act. But this is the proceeding which will either permit or enjoin this situation. Sholly is absolutely relevant to this proceeding. Similarly, OCRE's citation of Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 P.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), served to 3
establish that public hearing rights are unequivocally within the zone of interests of the Atomic Energy Act. The Staff apparently believes that only contentions raising safety issues can be litigated in license amendment proceedings. NRC Stafi Response at 3, 10. UCS clearly shows that public hearing rights, in addition to health and saf ety inatters, are within the zone of interests established by Congress in the Act. In addition, any doubt as to whether issues of law are admicsible in NRC proceedings should have been dispelled by the NRC's new rules of practico. In promulgating 10 CPR 2.714 (e) , the NRC stated: The intent of the proposed rule in 2.714 (d) (2) (iv) was that purely legal content $ons, which occur rarely, may be admitted as issues in the proceeding, llowever, they will not be part of an evidentiary hearing, but rather, will be handled on the basis of briefs and oral argument. A new , paragraph (c) has been added to 2.714 to clarify this intention. 54 Ped. Reg. 33160, 33172 (August 11, 1989),
" Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings -
procedural Changes in the llearing Process." The Staff cites Portland General Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant) , ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979) for the proposition that the Commission's regulations (10 CPR 50.36) do not require that every operational detail be in;:1uded in the technical specifications. Staff Response at 5. Ilowever, in Trojan the intervenor urged the inclusion of additional operational details for the spent fuel pool in the plant technical specifications. Trojan did not address the removal of items from the technical specifications. Nor did Trojan address publiq hearing rights under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. Since public hearing rights under the Act are the crux of
, 4
l 1 . . OCRE's contention, nothing in Tro$an can render OCRE's l contention invalid. The Staff also cites the Commission's policy statement on
" Technical, Specification Improvement Program," S2 Ped. Reg.
3788 (February 6, 1987) (Staf f Response at 7), and attaches a copy of Generic Letter 88-16, " Removal of Cycle-specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications" as support for the requested amendment. However, neither a policy statement nor a Generic Letter can superceda a statute. Finally, the Staff argues that 10 CPR 50.59 will somehow safeguard OCRE's rights in that the Licensees' self-evaluation under that section would result in a license amendment proceeding if it determines that a change in the core operating limits entails an unreviewed safety question. URC Staff , Response at 6-7. This is not equivalent to hearing rights under Section 189a. Presently, an operating license amendment proceeding is required for any changes to the core operating limits, not just those changes which the Licensees think are significant. In conclusion, the HRC Staff has failed to raise any valid arguments which would preclude the admission of OCRE's
, contention. And, since the Licensees concede that OCRE's contention has met the requirements of 10 CPR 2.714 (b) (2) ,
OCRE's contention should be admitted. 5 I
e . .. , x - ,.w : 7 . .
. ----rw-n. -
, . .h , 1
Me_. . d'~ M A 1 .g;- '/
r it
! '- \
,%j {.( ( 3d N (!. 4
[ ' \. fM gjg 48i , * ,' ::I t' i . ; 4 '> s a qqvr wy' , ?F ,-v
._v. t ' '
r ..
, c;s
. $" , 6 5 ,
2 #
, P; ; '. a 5 ' ' ' >
un w :..r., t T'_4. w.- : , ; w n 4 -e :y:_ 96 \ s r- c:p 1* _ g E. - g ; , ; fs3 ,. :T. L :s r ; g, j u, 1
.,c ,
( i
'7. ..r.
N @g? 3 [?'
-p" r
f \l , t v'
' d[}h
, y ' '* *
( ' ' e !~ ' '
- R.~k
.r ze g- , r 4
t
- t. y, . p.
.f' .p;,
y '~
~.t. .. e J ,3 '
. #n X:
i , . , t . 1 5-
'a' ' r
- v. , , '
4 . , ,
#p,a. ?w p ..
~ .
, c- .f q .m. , '
;,n' y
_-,.f-) 6 _-' ' ^ *.,., ' M 4 2
^
n
- i
& iv -'k .g,e a _ ~b '- x t
m , , . _4
- .f?c.
'y C '$, .
5- g
~ Respectf ully' submitted , -
?, <, . p -
~ , . _ -,
) -} ,f 2( - J
~
y *
y^ ,
i 2',g ' v u r W i
~
s 4. y ' 4
&A 4 ; .
p 1 a l Susan: L. , Hiatt .. j ph, Wi N. s J # - OCRE: Representative - , WW in a W < ? -8275:Munson1 Road-W hxg9n hn~ pg,' !. Mentor,.OH _44060;
~ i ,.
g wo
- _ a &.4yr %e 0 3
, . , m (216).:255-3158, a at> Y a ? ? 7 , <
s,, ; y r,
.u=1 Qp < - -
5
.5., #
3 < s'
_v^'" +*l2 _
^i g 7 7 ;-. ,
5 g 4 ,__ i , h k t . 6 3+:[ #T,,y t' 5 934 I TN ,. j i ((' 17[l]. s e- P r 4 ' j .i w9. i 3
.I hv/; nh,; g!g ..c, wip&p ~o.: %.
- \ , :
, + > -
.,. p
- z. -! pe l [ [;
y - t p . -
' .i k',
'[j&(b , - 3
- . i k i, ', [" 't. {,, -
J - 2
, 5 . V. p s
- -%g; y".w si ,
- C . . .r ' /h t,.e
- 1. , ,
<='eL'y.W-
,,, ' 5 : \.,e:m. W- 7
; .[: rz ; ,.- tjp ',i.. .,g'f n p. !
,y,s
't _.
q
+
- i. _i ,y. i -
a ..\
;. x, ,
r-
' t : \ L , ' - ; ;s ,- l q. v,* a > i.
-4, 4 ; .y=J,. - . . - - .n 3 i tc -t_,
.,.t.- ,7} r i a 1
' U ". g t i e
ir- ,, s a -' ;
.-% t t
.3 i
3.,i , , ^ ) I y; r 1 3;;,:
): :
& 't'}Q^
1 -{t' g m,
. ..;.p; e ,'( [
.l['
; i rib _
l b:. .-/, %. 1, 1 B g I[ f' J . t, L -
,y-
+ o u uA,y 'j ;- o
' -4
- 4 p
q+ ?e v , p p> a , <. -g
'- . ! . %n4
; . y - 4 :.
y'll
'. p t
t ,- y i2 .
,e i{
s
-m ,. 1 s
, '!x :; fe.l : .;l 4
Q :. 3[ ; e < t' 5{k -fp
~ '
$ % 4 jf p- ~
4 i;v
, us ,
'a g 'd g ,
, q
.,'y 3 _
- g. i(
-.i z
.. t n. ....
'E T h
' ' '%.o,~a.- yI'.,4f 1' 4 jk t
t ,
. u r 7}.- :
'*q
',-.b Mk . ; y '$ .,.i - j'
- p-._, v.s , ..3
- m o p. i s
f
- A 3 ., ,
.s1 hg 1 *_ . . ', ',' ,
Afg1+e ..Dih .'(1
)
9 i t'. a
.,'t
(, . i e ! 8.i. 'k. ' W s C JN t ,
-::3 i , qc, '
+
4
, %.d a+ ;. ) i. hg
, t vi
't (l' '^} ) -}, _ ? f ; . p , [.
<i,._
v' - ry:
- 3; , 1, ; ;
1 , e- - _. t
!gw i ht
'a - .. - .. ;
. g, r 1
- 2 WI '-
3, , j % ! h i ;s c
% 3 7 j t 3
1
')' '
'y
. , s Yl +
6, f: , n;
, 1
,- -y W: >
e
.g_ <
4 , ., y~,. e- - 1
.;\'
- _ y
[.[ f (- ( ) ' " '-.'+ a: , (
, , J'i9 r !" f Eif_ ,_ ? __ . , L, .
j' b j' W; L:i3 g., q y ,-{ h ' _ t j;
; ! ;. oW '
i l p :- , - g
. y'_e< . 7 p q, ..p i
m '. Sg;
.., . s -: , n
' .. 4 i
V f
+[ %
L s o.
;..p . ..
' J" ,. ;
_ l_' . < I. I _; ) - 4 ,-
, - _ ,a( , 1
- i . w 'I U '.
..# 5,,
f 1 1,.t, p, :W' t' s y' s y' k e, '.r ,
;c t r js-
~, .. v s > lv v D.aet v ,t e , ,c e ,3 ;
.v[,. -. f u ,,j.,
( y ,7 3 g
, , u .a w. d; t, t
.n- . , y
}- k J ] '
2 t" -4
+ 15-
. - f ;
. s
, jm.
m i w -.{
c
} -
, _ 5 4 _
Up.-u, +y
, _ j .,f
- ft qs '
. , t t ,
e q( M- 4 v... '. 'p; y nh 2 ~.' _i. c.-
, a 3. g ,
8 4.3 g ( ; ;f ' -' S b f T:h;b '
~-W Y:,51 . :4 %lf. f.
n p -g :n m. . D.a.t e s. >v m~ ,
- j. , A' v: R ' .9 . n H ,w%. +
r,- ,c w' I - . - - I - f I. %, g m. - - '.3,_ >
- m. g* ,- ,
i=dy g*(xc', g;4a ;. m Q q.1 . N, 9, . r ,%J z . ... qv~. ;o 4.w, ; , D.
,c
=r )/ y i
y&. I 5 c 5 !4 y e' . I .d. ^ k' 9-I 4~ k f1.' 5,It ,1'-,.. vh h.pw,fM.Mr,.a..~2/p s !m i O. ,'M 7. _.L .,.,..m~m.__m_-_.. , . E: 1i , , . . .
._ . . _ . .._._.1___._...__.
....,_.,+~..,_..,.1~,
;- 9: ,
.m._,._,n. y, 6
i
*- c CERTIP3CATE OP S1;RVICE I certifycthat S copies first of the foregoing class, postage were servedby:dieSpit prepaid, this j ;-
in the'U;J. day of Mail, vME , 1990 to the following:
% JLN -6 P 2 :48 Secretary (of:the Commission ATTN -Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission F I G Di SiCHfitJY v0CKl itNG 8. ',i irviti Washington, DC- 2055S itk ANL H ,
Administrative Judge Administrative Junge John H. Frye, Ill, Chatraan Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety snd Licensing Boarc Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washincton DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Colleen Woodneaa Escuire Frederick ~J. Shon Office of the General Counsel Ator.tc Safety and Licensing Boarc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comenssion Washington DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jay E. 911 berg- ' Shan,'Pittaeni.Potte & Trowbridge 2300-(StreetcN.W. s Washin4:tonjDC.'20037 l ,[b 3" , ,
}y ' ' ' i l
9 l u-Susan L.'lliatt
~
OCRE Representative f-f v}}