ML20057B593

Partially Withheld Commission Paper Re TMI Alert,Inc 830519 Request for Hearing on Util 830509 Request for Amend to License Re SG Tube Repairs

ML20057B593
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/23/1983
From:	Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20049A457	List: ML20054K065 ML20055C161 ML20055C162 ML20055C164 ML20055C168 ML20055C169 ML20055C170 ML20055C171 ML20055C172 ML20057B502 ML20057B511 ML20057B512 ML20057B515 ML20057B516 ML20057B520 ML20057B537 ML20057B538 ML20057B545 ML20057B547 ML20057B549 ML20057B552 ML20057B554 ML20057B555 ML20057B560 ML20057B561 ML20057B563 ML20057B565 ML20057B566 ML20057B568 ML20057B571 ML20057B573 ML20057B574 ML20057B576 ML20057B577 ML20057B579 ML20057B583 ML20057B586 ML20057B590 ... further results
References
FOIA-92-436 SECY-83-247, NUDOCS 9309220287
Download: ML20057B593 (32)

Text

p a :a - , _ ... _ = ; : a w = _ :.:.;;;; ; _ ; _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

pp *to uq'o, f ,

i 2 3  !

\,...../

___ June 23, 1983 ADJUDICATORY ISSUE _srcr-83-242 (Affirmation)

For: The Commission From: Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel

Subject:

TMIA Request for Hearing s

Purpose:

,d L7 L f.

D[ I .

Discussion: On May 9, 1983 General Public Utilities Corp.

(GPU) requested an amendment to the license for Three Mile Island, Unit 1 (TMI-1) to permit the steam generators to be declared operable following repair by methods to be approved by the NRC. GPU also requested an amendment approving the specific repair method used on the steam generators.

On May 19, 1983 Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.

(TMIA) requested a hearing on the amendment to the TMI-l operating license concerning the steam generator tube repairs. TMIA did not distinguish between the two requested amend-ments.

On May 31, 1983 notice was published in the Federal Register of GPU's amendment request and of the opportunity for a hearing on the request. Apparently staff is treating GPU's requests as a single amendment.

CONTACT:

Rick Levi, OGC 4-1465 in!ctmation in this re:ctd was dcMed in actmdance wdh the Eyedom of Mermation Act, turz tions 2 F0tA INM-9309220287 930428 v PDR FOIA i CILINSK92-436 PDR e

- - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ~-

r -..- . .

2

\

On June 3, 1983 staff responded to TMIA's , l request, arguing that the petition should be denied because TMIA had failed to meet the applicable requirements for intervention either as a matter of right or as a matter of the Commission's discretion. Staff noted that TMIA could file another petition which takes I account of the pleading defects in the present petition.

we We believe that

,e m i

[

_o

- - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _J

3 l

1

, _..._--4 Since it is our understanding that

~, .-..

n .

4 6

6 Recommendation:

l%

Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel

Enclosures:

1. Draft Order

2. TMIA Request

3. Staff Response I

A QS_

b_

- t I

5 Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the

___ _ Office of the Secretary by c.o.a. Friday, July 8, 1983.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted-to the Commissioners NLT Friday, July 1, 1983, with an infor-  :

mation copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment," the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.  ;

This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week.of July 11, _1983. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for i a specific date and time.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OPE '

SECY k

i 9

• @Ae-W '

e 9

I 4 l.i 44 g

- my 't *

• e S

4

~ a 9

7 s

4 I

4 m

h 2

e b

E;.losure 2 1 e

a t

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCfjji,ED .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CUMMISSJQy A9:15 In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit 1) ) -

FORMAL DEMAND FOR AN ADJUDICATORY HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO THE TMI-l OPERATING LICENSE CONCERNING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE REPAIRS Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (" Petitioner") hereby formally demands that it be granted a full adjudicatory hearing on the amendment to the TMI-l Facility Operating r

License, No. DPR-50 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-  !

sion in June, 1974, permitting operation of TMI-l after completion of explosive expansion repairs to all steam generator tubes in the upper tubesheet, most of which had failed due to an "intergranular attack (IGA) initiated from the primary side (ID) of the the tubes resulting in the formation of stress assisted intergranular cracks." SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE 'OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION,  !

l October, 1982. Further, Petitioner formally demands that j l

such license amendment not become immediately effective before completion of the hearing requested herein, pursuant i to $12(a)(2)(A) of S189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of , j 1954, 4 2 U. S.C. 2239(a), as amended, because of the "signifi-cant hazards consideration" involved with this repair process and subsequent operation of the plant.

/' \

N,

~

In support of this demand, Petitioner asserts as follows:

1. Petitioner Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., a public_ {

interest organization located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has been a recognized intervenor in hearings established by the Commission's Order and Notice of Hearing dated August 9, 1979, Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island I

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141 (1979),

representing its membership and other members of the public residing in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear facilities. Any order permitting operation of TMI-l may  ;

affect the interests of Petitioner and those whom it repre-sents to live in a environment f ree f rom health and safety hazards resulting from operation of TMI-1. Petitioner has ,

the requisite knowledge and experience suitable to qualify it to be admitted as a party to any hearing concerning the r subject license amendment.

2. The TMI-l facility has not operated since its sister 1

plant, TMI-2, experienced the worst commercial nuclear plant ,

accident in history on March 28, 1979. On July 2, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an Order directing that  ;

TMI-1 be maintained in a shutdown condition pending further order of the Commission, further determining that it was in the public interest that a hearing precede any possible restart of TMI-1. The Commission based its action on a conclusion that, In view of the variety of issues raised by the accident at the Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 facility, the Commission presently lacks the

'. ' ' ^

s e requisite reasonable assurance that the same licensee's Three Mile Island Unit No. l' f acility, a nuclear power reactor of similar design, can be operated without endangering the health and safety l of the public.

3. In late 1981, in the midst of the process esta-  ;

blished by the Commission to examine if TMI-1 could ever be safely operated, approximately 16,000 to 20,000 potentially defective steam generator tubes were detected in the secon-I dary side of both steam generators at TMI-1, causing primary to secondary leakage. These defects were determined to be caused by intergranular stress corrosion initiated from the surface on the primary side resulting in the formation of circumferential intergranular cracks. The active chemical impurity causing the corrosion was determined to be sulf ur, t

the source of which was thiosulf ate f rom the reactor- [

building spray system which entered the primary system by leaking through. isolation valves in the spray system and entering the reactor coolant system during testing. The  ;

majority of the defects occured within the top 2-3 inches of the 24 inch upper tubesheet (UTS).

4. In April, 1982, the Licensee notified the NRC staff that it had decided to repair the steam generator tubes using an explosive repair technique which would expand the ,

the tubes against the tubesheet, thereby establishing a new c

leak limiting / load carrying seal. The Licensee further decided to apply the explosive repair technique to all tubes within the UTS.

. ,~ . s ,

' i, y

, . i

5. By letter dated August 23, 1982, Darrel G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing of the office of '

Nuclear Reactot Regulation, (NRR) notified the Licensee that i

a license amendment would be required before such repairs l could begin, and before subsequent operation of the plant  !

could be permitted. In particular, Mr. Eisenhut stated,

[B]ecause the portion of the tube within the  ;

tubesheet contains defects greater than 40%

throughwall and your repair method for the  !

majority of these defects will not involve }

plugging, an amendment to the Technical Specifi- ,

cations (TS) 4.19 will be needed prior to return to power operation.... In the Staff's view, this j section of the TS applies to the existing condi-  ;

tion of the steam generators and not the condition i following repair.

6. In October, 1982, NRR issued a Safety Evaluation of ,

i Licensee's proposed repair technique, concluding without j i

opportunity for public comment, that the NRC staff was {

reversing its prior position with regard to the necessity of  ;

I a license amendment before use of the explosive expansion  !

repair technique, finding unilaterally that the " proposed l repair process does not involve an unreviewed safety l t

question or a modification to the Technical Specifications j and hence, may be conducted without NRC approval." NRR  ;

l clarified that the " Safety Evaluation is limited to an evaluation of the acceptability of performing the explo- )

sive expansion repair," not of the acceptability of opera-

)

tion after completion of the repair process. (emphasis added).  ;

1 1

.. _. ---.._. - -..w.

j

, 1

-S- )

7. Licensee began performing said explosive expansion repairs shortly after the Safety Evalution was issued. {

Petitioner believes that Licensee has now substantially completed said repair process.

8. NRC has consistently maintained that a license amend-  ;

ment will be required before operation after completion of the explosive expansion repairs. See, Eisenhut letter of August 23, 1982, supra; Statement by Eisenhut before the '

House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Inves-tigation, Committee on Interior and Insular Aff airs, '

December 13, 1982, (Transcript at pp. 39, 42) ("It is, and I it still remains, and has always been our position that '

prior to restart of that unit an amendment will be required... [T]he degradation problems at Three Mile Island clearly are unique, and we have taken the position that prior to restart on that facility an amendment is ,

required... it is an unreviewed safety question."); See, also, Commission letter in response to February 23, 1983 l inquiry f rom Hon. Morris K. Udall, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

9. There is little question that Licensee will request l a license amendment to permit operation of TMI-l with i subject steam generator tube repairs in place. On February 2,1983, the Licensee requested a license amendment to allow the repaired steam generators to be declared operable, but recently withdrew that request. In a letter dated April 19, )

i 1983 to the NRC, Henry D. Hukill, Vice-President GPU

y- 3-- .

.n3 w ;

Nuclear, stated that Licensee will be resubmitting its request for a license amendment sometime after May 6, 1983.

See, also, Additional Statements of GPU Nuclear Corpor-ation, before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Commitee on Interior and Insular Af f airs, April 26, 1983, at p. II-7.

10. Under 512(a)(2)(A) of 5189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2239(a), as amended, the NRC is required to hold a requested hearing on any license amend-ment, but under the recently enacted "Sholly" amendment to the Act, may avoid holding a requested hearing prior to that anendment becoming immediately ef f ecive only if it finds l 1

that the amendment presents no significant hazards consider-ation. In enacting this provision, Congress explicitly intended that license amendments involving irreversible I consequences (such as those ... allowing a facility to operate for a period of time without full safety protec-tions) require prior hearings or the public's right to have its views considered would be foreclosed, and that 1

" borderline" cases be resolved in favor of finding a I significant hazard consideration. H. R . Rep.97-884, p. 37 (1982).

11. The NRC has already admitted that the TMI-l steam tube problem is the very worst in the entire country.

See, Statement of Harold Denton, Director of NRR in testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Interior and Insular

3- ", , -___

Af f airs, February 1,1982. Moreover, the NRC staf f has already recognized potential safety hazards which could result from operation of TMI-l due to the subject steam tube repairs. An internal NRC memorandum dated May 19, 1982 from William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials and Qualif-ications Engineering, Division of Engineering, to Thomas Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, Division of Licensing, reveals the following concerns:

a. "To the extent that we have not experienced this type of behavior before, ... the staf f has not reviewed the potential consequences of known defects. Particularly, the potential for this type of corrosion to rapidly progress upon restart and adversely af fect the [ steam generator] primary pressure boundary."

b. "We consider the existence of a type of corrosion which has extensively degraded the steam generators, to also have the potential to degrade other reactor coolant system materisis." (It is significant that the Waste Gas System and the critical PORV [ Power Operated Relief Valve] have already been identified as damaged by sulfer).

c. "The proposed repair technique involves a leak limiting rather than a leak free seal."(emphasis added). (In GPU's October 18-19, 1982 briefing to the NRC, Licensee indicated that this leakage will increase over time, and that in a five year life, the water leakage may increase by a factor of ten, causing increased radiation releases into the environment.)

" ...[E]xcessive compressive loading may result d.

upon heatup of the plant which could lead to bowing or local buckling which could cause new corrosion initiation sites."

12. Perhaps most significantly, the staff expresses concern with " rapid failures occuring upon plant restart."

No recommendations yet exist that the steam generators be tested to examine if the explosively expanded deformed tubes

a . ,

1 I

1 1

)

.[

can withstand, for example, the pressure experience which would result from a turbine trip at maximum power, or from  ;

l thermal shock which would be generated from inadvertent ,

1 actuation of the emergency feedwater system at high power.  !

Common sense dictates that the extraordinarily hazardous J potential consequences of " rapid failures occuring upon plant restart" or at any point mandate that the tube repair process and any testing procedure proposed by the Licensee l or the NRC staff be fully examined in the context of a full adjudicatory hearing before the plant is permitted to ,

I operate.

13. Further, in a September 19, 1982 memorandum, then l

Chairman of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor '

Safeguards ( ACRS) Paul Shewmon stated that a simultaneous rupture in each of the steam generators "isn't an incredible 1 l

event." In a letter dated January 21, 1983, Congressman l l

Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight l and Investigations, House Committee on Interior and Insular Af f airs, asked the Commission whether such an incident could l

lead to a sequence not encompassed by emergency procedures '

and whether this issue would be resolved before restart of the plant. In its response, the Commission stated, "Yes, a l 1

tube rupture in both SG's of a two SG plant could lead to a i sequence not encompassed by the emergency procedures," and 1

that while the issue was being considered under the TMI i 1

Action Plan (Item I.C.1), "(t)he Commission does not l

)

consider the implementation of this action plan item to be l l

.o

_9 ,

necessary before the restart of TMI-1. Congressman Markey then asked for clarificaiton of these comments by letter dated March 23, 1983. In its response dated May 5, 1983, the Commission could only state that a single tube rupture in both steam generators is " highly unlikely," is "not expected to result in core damage," but that "no probabil-e istic risk assessment of the subject event has been performed by either the NRC staff or the ACRS for TMI-1."

(emphasis added). The Commission further noted that in the event that both steam generators have ruptured tubes, the t operator would be forced to accomplish cooldown and depres-surization using at least one faulted steam generator, resulting in continuous leakage of primary coulant to the secondary system and thus releases of radioactive material  ;

to the environment. Clearly, such a scenario raises significant safety hazard considerations. The chances of, potential consequences of, and the ability of operators to l handle multiple tube ruptures demand the most intense examination in the context of a full hearing before plant i

operation is allowed.  ;

14. Moreover, failure to hold a prior hearing in this case through a "no significant hazard consideration" finding, would violate the express intent of Congress in enacting the "Sholly" amendment. Congressman Morris K.  !

Udall, Chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Af f airs, and the Conference Committee out of which l

l l

J

}

the "Sholly" amendment legislation was reported, has already i stated, I am troubled by reports I have heard that some on the NRC staf f believe this authority might be used  !

to approve steam generator repairs at Three Mile .

Island Unit-1. Congress enacted the Sholly provision so that NRC could redirect its attention i and resources away from trivial matters and concentrate instead on matters of great public concern and safety significance such at TMI-l steam generator repair work.

Statement of the Hon. Morris K. Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on i Interior and Insular Af f airs, February 22, 1983.

i t

Pursuant to the foregoing considerations, Petitioner  :

herein,

1. States that it represents persons whose interests may be affected by the proceeding to grant a license  ;

i i amendnen t to permit operation of TMI-l with the subject  !

a j steam generator tube repairs in place. l 1

~

2. Request that a public adjudicatory hearing pursuant l i

to S189 of the Atomic Energy Act be held on this license amendment.

I i

h t

3. Request that such hearing be~ held prior to the license amendment becoming immediate'ly effective and operation of TMI-l permitted.

4. Petition that it be granted leave to participate in such a hearing as intervenors.

Respectfully submitted,

/2 '

i May 19, 1983 By: Ett m d /C1 th ----

VJoanne Doroshow Louise Bradford Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.

315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102

dJ =42 4hu h . .e E . E JA-. 35 s W 4 - * -+ W*.2.Aee 44. + --.w--

sa s. - *m.w-4,;,m,ur._,m.# . , , , .;m ,ya-,,,,. . ,s,_, w,., . - -. , , ,,t_

,,.4-- -A++J .* 14 J d- a 4.#r. J s.Oa % .e d e 4 .- 4 - .

h y

. ' . .T..*- ',  ;

T ,

li** ,, * ~j

- t

, v 9 y

+ e I 'b i A l

t d $

!' }

p C

l E 6

e  :

[,, >v y t

l s

I L

,s a

f 4, F d f f

a t

4 I 2

i

?

9 f

' l

, I t

r-v @

l .h I

W d'- . .

- i Enclosure-3 i t

, . . . -i

• e W. ,

q.  !

l' i 46 C 3,

l  !

1 4

.1 6

l ' W +

}, - - l

?

1 4

i

.1 i

j_ e 6  ;

f 4-I L

4 ,

i 4

e

• I t . .

g a

[

2 1 .

?

, e

. L 1 L a .

4 J s j ' I

- - - , , ,-- , , , - , - -. . . , , . -,-.. . ~ . . - - _ . . . - . ,_,.. . . . ~ . , - - - - . - ... - - . . - ~ . -_ - - ...,+, , , ~ , - -. - - - - - . _ -_ ~ _ ~ - . - . - --

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f BEFORE THE COMMISSION _ _

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) (SteamGeneratorRepair)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )

Unit No. 1) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY THREE !!ILE ISLAND ALERT, INC. FOR ADJUDICATORI

~

HEARING ON STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR AMEhDMENT - .. . . . - -

l .

l

/

Richard J. Rawson June 3, 1983 Counsel for NRC Staff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of

- METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. Docket No.~50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)

~

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, INC. FOR /DJUDICATORY HEARING ON STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR AMENDMENT  :

I. INTRODUCTION

-~  ? ' -Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. ("TMIA") has filed a " formal demand --

'for an adjudicatory hearing"1/ niconnection with a request by GPU Nuclear -

Corporation (" Licensee") for an amendment to the license for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 ("TMI-1") to perinit non-nuclear heat-up of the plant and subsequent operation using recently-repaired steam 4 generators.2/ For the reasons discussed below, TMIA's petition fails to satisfy the requirements for a request for hearing in that it does not contain the requisite demonstration of petitioner's interest in this e

licensing action. Accordingly,thepresentpetitionshouldbedenied.1/

"Fonnal Demand For An Adjudicatory Hearing On Amendment To The

-1/ >

TMI-1 Operating License Concerning Steam Generator Tube Repairs",

dated May 19,1983("THIAPetition").

2/ Approval of the present amendment requested by Licensee would obviously not authorize operation in the absence of prior resolution by the Comission of the matters now pending before the Comission in the THI-1 restart proceeding. .

3/

~~

As discussed below, the denial of the present request for hearing by TMIA would not bar a further attempt by TMIA to make the requisite showing under the Comission's regulations to support its request for hearing. ,

1

II. DISCUSSION .

A. Factual and Procedural Background The Commission issued an order on July 2, 1979 directing that the THI-1 facility remain shut down#/ until the Comission determined, in light of the March 28, 1979 accident at-T141-2, whether it continued to have reasonable assurance that TMI-1 could be operated with no undue

~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' risk to the public health and safety. See Metropolitan Edison Co. .

~

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-7S-8,10 NRC 141 A special proceeding addressing that issue is.still in progress.  ;

. (1979).

Nhile the facility was shut down pursuant to the Comission's order, Licensee discovered that many of the tubes in the steam .- generators at Tiil-1 ~' had been damaged and would require repair or repval from ervice.

.. - . . , . . .. l Licensee decided to repair the steam generators using a kjnetic expansion _ _,

technique for certain tubes and conventional plugging rocedures,for other tubes. The Licensee conducted the repairs pursuant to 10 CFR,

.. 9 50.59 and no license amendment was found to be necessary at that time,  !

although it was noted by the Staff that an amendment would be required for operation with the repaired steam generators.  :

On May 9, 1983. Licensee submitted a request for an amendment to

~

its license for a change in the technical specifications for THI-1 to l pemit the steam generators to be declared operable following repair by  ;

methods to be approved by the NRC. Licensee also requested an amendment approving the specific repair method used on the steam generators.

i 4/ At the time of the Comission's July 2,1979 order, THI-I was shut down for refueling, i

i I

~;  :.

l f

Licensee had previcusly submitted to the NRC detailed descriptions and analyses of its steam generator repair method and information to support the adequacy of the repair method.

Revisions to 10 CFR S 50.92 having become effective on-May 6,1983, the issuance of notice of Licensee's amendment request and of opportunity -

for hearing on the request is governed by new regulatory procedures. ~

Such notice was published in the Federal Register on May 31. 48 Fed.

~

Reg. 24231 (May 31, 1983). In accordance with the procedures provided by

. 10 CFR 6 50.92 and as a result of the Staff's review of the amendment application and supporting information, that notice included: (1)a ,

-- - description of the proposed license amendments; (2) a~ preliminary ~ -

determination that no significant hazards consideration ~ is involved;' ~ -

(3) a statement of the reasons for the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination; (4) a request for coments on the proposed nosignificanthazardsconsiderationdetermination;and(5)~noticeofthe -

manner in which interested persons may request a hearing. -

On May 19, 1983, prior to the issuance of this Federal Register  ;

notice, the present petition was filed by TMIA.

B. THIA's Reauest for Hearing  ;

The TMIA Petition demands that a full adjudicatory hearing be held on Licensee's amendment request. I Since no notice of opportunity for i

~

5/ THIA also demands that any license amendment issued in response to Licensee's present request "not become irnediately effective before  !

completion of the hearing requested . . . because of the  :

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) ,

l I

hearing had been published at the time THIA filed its request for hearing,  ;

- - - - .the-authority for such a hearing request would be derived from Section -

189aoftheAtomicEnergyAct.b TMIA asserts that it represents its membership and other members of ' -

the public " residing in the vicinity" of' TMI-1. THIA ~ Petition at 2. Any ' -

order permitting operation of TMI-1, states TMIA, may affect the interests ~

of petitioner and those it represents in living "in an environment free -

from health and safety hazards resulting from operation'of THI-1." Id. -~r:

D In further support of its petition to intervene, THIA arguet,'that it has '

r "the requisite knowledge and experience suitable to qualify it to be -

z: _- - -admitted as a party" and that it has been a recognized intervenor-in the -'-~

TMI-1 restart proceeding. Id. ~v  : :^+:: - - .-

~

-The remainder of the TMIA Petition is devoted to a discussion of: " - ~ - t the steam generator tube repair technique itself and to TMIA's position -- -

that a significant safety issue is presented by renewed operation as a' rr '

. consequence of the repairs.b S ee THIA Petition at 3-10. :'

5/

~~

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

'significant hazards consideration' involved with this repair process and subsequent operation of the plant." TMIA Petition at 1. Under 10 CFR 5 50.92, the Comission has delegated to the Staff the authority to make preliminary and final determinations as to whether a license amendment presents a significant hazards consideration. The Staff will treat that portion of THIA's Petition addressing the issue of a possible significant hazards consideration as a coment on the Staff's preliminary determination that no significant hazards consideration is presented by these amendments and will take TMIA's coments, together with any other coments received, into account in arriving at a final determination on whether a significant hazards consideration is presented by Licensee's request. Accordingly, no action by the Comission is required with respect to this aspect of the TMIA Petition.

6/ 42 U.S.C. I 2239(a).

7/ See note 5, supra.

^

t 4

• 1 l

1 C.

Reouirements for Requests for Hearing _ j 5ection 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(~a),~~pr ~

that:  :

l In any proceeding under [the] Act, for the granting, s --

Comission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any'  :

person whosa interest may he affected by the proceeding, and _

shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.

Section 2.714(a) of the Comission's Rules of Practice also provides d

that "[a]ny person whose interest may be affected by a proceef.;eg an for who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition ,

Thus the pertinent inquiry, whether the petitioner's leave to intervene." 4(a) i request is considered under Section 189a3:. of the Act or 10

.- 3; ,

CFR 5 2.

_ of the regulations, is whether the petitioner has alleged an interest l

Where the which may be affected by the license amendment proceeding. i requisite interest is shown, intervention may be granted as a matter o right.

Absent a demonstration of the requisite interest, intervention __

- t may be granted in the Comission's discretion. .

1.

Interest and Standing for Intervention as a Matter of Right In seeking to determine whether the requisite interest prescribed ,

by both Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and Section 2.71 NRC's Rules of Practice is present, the Comission has held that Portland contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are controlling. '

General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),

Thus, there must Se a showing CL1-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976).

(1) that the action being challenged could cause " injury-in-fact r

I

~

.i 8

person seeking to intervene / and (2) that such injury-is arguably within

_ the " zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy ActEl or the National Environmental Policy Act.El I d_. See also Warth v. Seldin,  !

422 U.S. 490 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972);

Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc._v _ Camp,. __ _!

397U.S.150,153(1970).

~ ~

The Appeal Board has ruled that the geographical proximity of a

~

. petitioner's residence, standing alone, is sufficient to satisfy the i

. -interest requirements. Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna -

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979).

.Though no firm outer boundary for this geographic zone ~of: interest has -

l been determined, distances of up to 50 miles have been: accepted ~by the Appeal Board as conferring standing upon particular petitioners. See, -

e.g. , Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Uni _ts ) and.._ __

2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 at n. 4 (1977); Cf. Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and_2h ALAB.-146 j 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island . _ . _

8/ " Abstract concerns" or a " mere academic interest" in the matter ,

which are not accompanied by some real impact on a petitioner will not confer standing. See In the Matter of Ten Applications for ,

Low-Enriched Uranium ETp6rts to EURATOM Member Nations, CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977); Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, asu ra at 613.

Rather the asserted harm must have some particular effect on a petitioner, Ten Applications, CLI-77, 24, supra, and a petitioner must have some direct stake in the outcome of the proceeding. SeE Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 WC 420, 422 (1976).

9/ 42 U.S.C. 5 2239 _e_t t seq.

10/ 42 U.S.C. 5 4321 et seq.  !

i l

l

07, 6 AEC 188, 190, 193, ..

Hur' ear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-1ff'd, CLI-7 ,

reconsideration denied, ALAB-110, 6 AEC 247, a .

I to ,

(1973).

An organization may gain standing to ~4 intervene based on

~~

Edlow International Company, CLI-76-6, 3 NRC ~

563,'572-itself. t If the organization seeks standing on its own- behalf, ~ it-m (1976). j is not a establish that it will be injured and that the in uryby all or a l measure generalized grievance shared in sub:tantially equa On

- -large class of citizens. ding i.hrough members the other hand, an organization may establish stanby the ffected of the organization who have an interest whichC ~ ~ * '

outcome of the proceeding. _ '32sI3sf.ClIS, Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-

~

At the same time, when an organization claims that'i 330 (1976). h rganization must '

standing is based on the interests of its members, ) h se ' ~~

teo identify specific individual members (bytion name and address w that'such interests may be affected and give some concrete indica t their interests in members have authorized the organization to represen Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek the proceeding. 77 393-97 (1979);

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, Generating 9 HRC 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear (1973);

Station, Units 1and2),ALAB-136,6AEC487,488-89 i Unit Duque3ne Light Company, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Stat No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 244 at n.2 (1973).

2.

Requirements for Discretionary Interventioni_ according Intervention may also be grantedt entitled "as a matter to of discre to specific criteria" to some petitioners who are no

. . . n intervention as i matter of rioht. Portland General Electric Company,

~

. et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976). In Pebble Springs the Comission delineated these _

specific criteria as:  :- -

(a) Weighing in favor of allowing intervention - -

(1) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, '

financial, or other interest in the proceeding.

. = (3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in :

the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. -

(b) Weighing against allowing intervention -

r. - - -- (4) The availability of other means whereby petitioner's 5 e interest will be protected. r t:- -e

. (5) The extent to which petitioner's interest will be- -

represented by existing parties. -

(6) The extent to which petitioner's participation will

-- inappropriately broaden or delay the proceeding. 4 NRC --

at 616.

The Comission also cautioned in Pebble Springs that the exercise of

~

discretion should ne " based on an assessment of all the facts and circumstances f tb porticular case." M. Discretionary intervention should be affv.oea more readily:

"where petitioners show significant ability to contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which will not otherwise be properly raised or presented, set forth these matters with suitable specificity to allow evaluation, and demonstrate their importance and imediacy, justifying the time necessary to consider them."

4 NRC at 617.

The burden of demonstrating that discretionary intervention is appropriate in a given case lies with the petitioner. Nuclear Engineering Company, ,

Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site),

ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978).

D. Evaluation of the TMIA Petition ~

~~

TMIA's petition fails to satisfy the requirements for. intef'v~e~ntion in that it does not contain the requisite demonstration of petitioner's interest in this licensing action. Petitioner has not_ shown that it is entitled to intervention either as a matter of right or as a matter of the Commission's discretion.

^

1. THIA's Petition Does Not Adequately Support Intervention

~~~~~~~~~' as of Right TMIA has not attempted to demonstrate that it has standing based on

. .. Nor is it apparent from TMIA's ,

any injury to itself as an organization.

petition that TMIA has any basis for a claim that it w1,1,1, suffer cognizable injury as an organization if the requested..am..en.dment is Accordingly, THIA must rely for its standing on the standing of granted.

Harble Hill _, ALAB-322, supra.

at least one of its individual members.

t TMIA asserts that it has members "in the vicinity" of, TMI-1.

However, TMIA has failed to id'entify these members and to demonstrate

- specifically their geographical proximity to THI-1 as_ required by THIA has also failed to demonstrate its authority Commission precedent.

to act on the behalf of its specific members who nay possess standing in Without an explicit this proceeding. See Allens Creek, ALAB-535, supra.

identification of its members who possess standing on the basis of their geographical proximity to THI-1 and without a specific statement bl '

that it is authorized by those members to act on their behalf in this ,

proceeding, TMIA fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention as a matter of right in any adjudicatory proceeding concerning the present I amendment request.

1

~

f.

The fact that TMIA has been admitted in other proceedings concerning THI ,1 does not excuse THIA's failure to demonstrate that the requ ,

While the fact of such for intervention are met for this proceeding.

y prior intervention suggests that TMIA may ultimately be able to demonstrate that it has standing here, a separate showing for this proceeding must be made.III Similarly,1111A's asserti n that it has the " requisite knowledge and experience" cannot act as a substitute for the legally required showing that TMIA has a cognizable interest in this ~

proceeding.E At the present time, no such interest has been shown. _ ,,

2.

THI A's Petition Does Hot Support Discretionary Intervention TMIA's petition has not provided sufficient ir. formation to - . . carry

.,...... ., ....l r THIA's burden of demonstrating that discretionary ~

it:tervention would be .

The bare statement that THIA has the " requisite  ;

appropriate here.

knowledge and experience" to be an intervenor in this proceeding lacks the degree of particularization which would permit a judgment to be drawn one way or the other as to whether THIA's participation may ,

TMIA's reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

petition contains little or no information which would pemit an .

1

~ ~

11/

It has been held that a petitioner's participation in a' prior proceeding with regard to a facility is not sufficien that same facility. Philadelphia Electric Co. et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-75-22-~17RC 451, 454-55 (1975); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. et al. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1),LBP-73-26,6AEC612,TIF(1973).

12/ Standing to intervene as a matter of right does not hinge upon a ,

~

petitioner's potential contribution to the decision-making process.

Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 HRC 98,107 n.12 (1976).

evaluation of the various criteria delineated in Pebble Sprinos, supra.

The burden of demonstrating that discretionary intervention is appropriate under the particular circumstances presented lies with the

~ petitioners. Sheffield, ALAB-473, supra. That burden- has not been .

carried by THIA here.

III. CONCLUSION TMIA has failed to show that it meets the applicable requirements for intervention either as a matter of rip.t or as a matter of the Comission's discretion. Accordingly, TMIA's present petition should be denied. The Staff notes, however, that a notice of opportunity for - -

hearing'on the proposed license amendment has very recentfy been published in :rt:

the Federal Register. 48 Fed. R3 24231 (May 31, 1983). ~ There is no bar to TMIA's submission of a new petition, pursuant to that notice, which takes account of the defects in its present petition discussed above. The Staff urges that TMIA's instant request for_ hearing be denied without prejudice to THIA's ability to file a subsequent request for

~

hearing pursuant to the notice of opportunity for hearing just published.

Respectfully submitted, fhb!f. f==

Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of June,1983

.c ..~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _

BEFORE THE COMMISSION .

In the Matter of

}

t Docket No. 50-289. . .

(SteamGeneratorRepair)

- 'METROPOLITANEDISONCOMPANY,ETAL.)))

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. )

UnitNo.1) ,

~ . - . . .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

- - I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY THREE -

MILE ISLAND ALERT, INC. FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING ON STEAM GENERATOR, REPAIR AMENDMENT" in the above-captioned proceeding bave been served on the .following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as

' indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's.

internal mail system, this 3rd day of June 1983: , _ ;, :. . ~ .. . . _ .

Robert Adler, Esq.

E

• Samuel J. Chilk 505 Executive House-Secretary of the Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box 2357 -

Harrisburg, PA 17120

~~ Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky

• Herzel H.E. Plaine, General Counsel r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bureau of Radiation Protection -

Dept. of Environmental Resources Washington, DC 20555 -

P.O. Box 2063

• Harrisburg, PA 17120 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Allen R. Carter, Chaiman 1800 M Street, NW Joint Legislative Comittee Washington, DC 20036 on Energy Post Office Box 142 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Suite 513 6504 Bradford Terrace Senate Gressette Building Philadelphia, PA 19149 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 <

Mr. C.W. Smyth, Supervisor Mr. Henry D. Hukill Licensing THI-1 Vice President Three Mile Island Nuclear Station GPU Huclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 Post Office Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Middletown, PA 17057

0 . .

i Honorable Mark Cohen David E. Cole 512 D-3 Main Capital Building Smith & Smith, P.L. i I

Harrisburg,PA 17120 2931 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 .i John Levin, Esq. .

~ Michael W. Maupin,' Esquire Pennsylvania Public Utilities Com.

Box 3265 Hunton & Williams >

Harrisburg, PA 17120 707 East Main Street  ;

P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 -i

" Louise BradG rd  !

Three P.** . Island Alert

• Docketing & Service Section l 1011 G i' Street Office of the Secretary i Harrisb .rg, PA 17102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,

o Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Comission Washington, DC 20555. .

Hamon & Weiss

~

1725 1 Street, NW

• Atomic Safety & Licensing ,

~ Suite 506 .

Board Panel -

1 Washington, DC 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ^  ;

Mr. Steven C. Sho11y . Comission .. .

l Washington,.DC 20555_ .

Union of Concerned Scientists

' ~

1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW ,' . . . . . . . . . .

l

~

Dupont Circle Building, Suite 1101

• Atomic Safety and Licensing. Appeal.. ."- -

Washington, DC 20036 Board Panel .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 I

- - - - - - - h* l8. W : = i

' Richard J. Kawson Counsel for NRC Staff j 3

l l

a I

I t

w- 1 h.a _ _ _ _ _

-. - .,