ML20062H683
| ML20062H683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1990 |
| From: | Vigil J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062H666 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-6, NUDOCS 9012050230 | |
| Download: ML20062H683 (36) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ 1
.]
o 4 meenato
-I UbHRC-
]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION < 90 p 13 A10:45- s 1 ' t p W Ar.!t P ! hucip (Utb i , VVG i
)- "
stm -1 In the Matter-of' ) !
) Docket Nos. 50-250: j FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ). 150-251'
) ;
(Turkey Point Plant, ) ; Units 3 and 4) . -)
)_ .
. November;9, 1990-LICENSEE'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION-TO REQUEST'FOR HEARING AND PETITION.FOR-- ' '
R TRAVE:TO INTERVENE e I. Introduction
~
( Florida PowerL& Light Company:("FPL" Eor " Licensee"); files this- answer in opposition- to a " Request . forI Hearirig. and = - Petition for' Leave to! Intervene"!(" Petit! ion")' submitted.by the Nuclear. Energy Accountability Project.-(~" NEAP") Land Thomas-:J. Saporito, Jr. (collectively' referred to"asi" Petitioners"),Jsigned' L October.25,.1990, and relating.to certAin proposed'famendments(to : the operating licenses for Turkey-Point = Nuclear l Power. Plants,<
~ Units 3 and/4,' noticed;at.55iFed. Reg.:39,331h(Sept.:26,. 1990).<
Fi The iproposed amendments .-would ,.Jas : part i.of n FPL ? s " Emergency; Power! ' h '
.s H _ System -(L"EPS". ) Enhancement ' Project for. Turkey! P.oirit[implementsa
? l
. . L. <
; number of; design changes,Ldescribed'in greater'detailjin PartJII',.
.below._ o
- Petitioners have' failed]to. provideisufficient; information'to establish that they.Thaveistanding toLinitiate andi '
. \' ,
participate in the requeste'd' hearing. Moreover,'their assertions
'in.supportJofltheiriclaim toistanding aretambiguous'and appear tol 2 9012050230 901128 F'
' PDR .ADOCK-05000250 N a 4
- Q PDR fq
.g < <
.a
..a - . . . . . . s - . . . . . , - - ,
'. :h Le L i i
contradict statements made in other proceedings. Further,- , Petitioners have not met the' requirements of- C.C regulations in .! framing their proffered. Contentions. Consequently,,-they have- t neither established standing nor asserted an admissible > Centention. The Petition should be denied. 1/ h II. General Description of Reaumstad h ndments l. The requested amendments would accommodate.the. modific'ation and improvement of electrical power systems;being undertaken as part of the EPS' Enhancement ProjectEat. Turkey Point, including,the addition of two emergencyEdiesell generators',
~
two additional battery chargers, a battery bank,-and associated support equipment and electrical distribution equipment such-as-
-motor control centers, loadLeenters, and'switchgear. Thei .
amendments would:also: modify-the! Technical:Specificationsf(."TS";),' primarily those : concerning electric power: supplies, . so : asito' be ' " applicable to the improved design. -WhereLthe Turkey. Point'dtaign. ' j l
-permits, the proposed TS:are consistent'with Standard Technical 4 4 L Specification's--("STS"),.which are in: general use.'in'the industry.; '
Sas.55 Fed. Reg. 39,331. The EPS enhancement also;provides, primarily through
'd
?!
L -the addition'of-an intestie' Otween-the:.two Turkey-Point? Units,, l' the' means?whereby FPL intends uto= satisfy the requirements; of: the
~ '
i Commission's Station; Blackout (."SBO") rule, ~ 10!CFR S 50.63, at-1/L 1A,copyLofLthe Petition, addr'essed(tolthe' Secretary:of' thel Commission,:was,providedEtoiFPL by the'NRCJStaff. :Licens'ee 4 has t never'-been : served by Petitioners.. . l i jf
. m .' . o z- 1
~
x .; i
' Turkey Point. This feature will provide an alternate AC power i feed to a blackout Unit from an operating ~emergencyfdiesel [
generator ("EDG") on the non-blackout Unit. San Letter to J.H. i l Goldberg (FPL) from Gordon E. Edison, Sr. (NRC), dated June 15,. i l L 1990, and enclosed Safety Evaluation ("SBO SEfety Evaluation",).1 t l By increasing.the number of EDGs from.two to,four,1the ! EPS enhancement, as implemented by;the. associated-license; i amendments, will essentially double EPS capacity at Turkey Point.- . l This increase, together with. modifications.to'EPS' distribution, f makes more EDG capacity available fori the : operation of engineered ' p safety features. As a result, overall.. plant safety-is improved.: III. The Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated Standina .; Under 10 CFR S 2.714, a person-.who; desires.to: intervene in an:NRC proceeding is required touldentify an interest thati ' would be affected'byathe proceeding..:Specifically,1101CFR q S 2.714 (a)(2)Latates: - I,
.The petition shall set forth with
<the interest of the petitioners-in,the' proceeding,particularity, how-l i
that interest may be affected-by,the:resultsiof;the1 proceeding, including;the:reasonsLwhy petitionergshould. be permitted to intervene,Lwith:particular' reference.to: ; the-factors in paragraph (d)(1)1of-this:section', Land-1 the specific aspect or aspects,of the subject; matter of
-the proceeding as:to which petitioner wishes-to' ,
' intervene.-
4
'10'CFR S'2'.714 (d)(1) provides'thatithe NRC willtconsider:the
'following factors'in ruling on a petition 1for leaveLto' intervene < d l
i or a requestifor hearing: , L(1) TheLnature'of the petitioner's right-under; t the1Act to"be made a. party to the:'p~roceeding. i i
' t' i
y ,'hj , , . . , .w., . , - sk
- i-*-* * *
< r >< , -
i' 3 q t 3 h - -- 4 -- 1 L : L l (11) The. nature;and extent of the petitioner's- ! property, financicl, or'other interest in the , i proceeding.. . l . . 1
-(iii) The possible'offactLof'any order.that:may.be , i entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's' interest.
i The Commission has held that, indeterminingwhethbr.a- 3 person has an interest which may.be affected by a proceeding,-- ;
" contemporaneous judicial: concepts of' standing should be'used.": -
4 Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs-Nuclear ~ Plant' UnitsJ1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4'NRC 610,;614R(1976)l.- To have ]n standing, a person must allege-that.he will be.injurediin fact!as-a result of the. proceeding, and that his interests'fal10within" ,
, , h q
the zone of. interests protected:by-applicable; stat 0tes. Portland ' f i General Electr3c, Angra, 4 NRC_at 613; Public Service Co. of
~ '
'l Indiana (Marble Hill 1 Nuclear < Generating l Station,JUnitsL1 and 2),
&y CLI-80-10, 110NRC'438, 439~(1980). Yf
'In order to establish " injury in. fact" for standing,;as ,
L petitioner'mustihave a "real'.' stake" in the outcome of;ther - proceeding.. Houston L-ichtino &-Power Co.f(SouthzTexaslProject,- i .
. . , . - . .. .. j Units'l'and'2),TLBP-79-10, 9 NRC'439,c447-48,oaff'di ALAB 549,"9:
NRC 644.(1979).- Although;residenceLwith'in;50 milesfoffa plants " if
.-has beentholdisufficient:to establishistandingstolassert(safety M ' .
/
lquestionsj re'sidencesmore than-.75 millessfromia'plantiwillEnoti j bq 4
. y _ , . . . .,. ,.+ a m> alonecestablish.an interest-sufficient forLstanding as?a' q matter #g of right. Comoare,[ Tennessee Vallev AuthorityL(WattsiBar'Nucleari 1
, Jz; L Plant EUnits L 1 ; and 2 )',7 ALAB-413,J 5 !NRC f1418, (1421 : n, . 4 '.(1977.)h . u
, j
+ '
s . r{ ) ! r i r Ih 2, ' t [ , p. f r +- m 1 . ra :t<_x. -=__:_-
--- " ~-"~ ~ ~"**
" ~ ' ^^
m e , ?
-i . _f
- 5e -
{ y,Lt.h, Dairvland Power Coooerative (Lacrosse Boiling Water I j Reactor), ALAB-497, 8 NRC 312, 313.(1978), ' 3 Petitioners apparentl'y base:their' claims-of standing to-- f
-f intervene on the organizational standing of NEAP, and on the 1 s
personal standing of Thomas J. Saporito,LJr. However, the j
~
Petition fails to meet-the basiciroquirements described above :)
' a with respect to either. '
L l' A. The Allegations;Made in the Petition:are Insufficient' on-Their Face to'.SupportLNEAP'syStanding, Are Ambiguous, and! Appear.t& Contradict Statements Made- : l Concernina NnD in Other Proceedinas l In order-to meet the requirements.for standing,-an. .j
" organization.must show injury;either toLits organizational. >
3 interests:or to the interests of memberscwho-hava-auth'orized it; l y Philadelphia-Electric ~co.L(Limerick Generating. to act for them." Station, Units 1 and 2),:LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423,;14371.(1982),, (citino warth v. Seldin,.422,U.S. 490,L 5114(1976));; Sierra Club
- v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739-40L(1972). : Petitioners ~apparently j, seek.to establish NEAP's> standing,to intervenefon1theibasis:of '
j i
-alleged injury to NEAP's' organizational':interestsk rather:than'to- '
the interests of any NEAP members whoihave$ authorized 1NEAPftojact' ., i, 9 for them.'2/' i; Y 1,
- 2/ When an: organization 1 undertakes tbIintervene on behalf-of i its members,-it,must demonstrateithat:a memberihas; authorized the '
organization-to' represent"him or'her.in:theiproceeding., H Philadelphia Electric'Co.'15 NRC:ati1437.;fHouston-Lichtino r, ~ 1 Power Co. , 9 _ NRC. at 44 4 ; Detroit' Edison Co. -(Enrico Fermic Atc,mic . Power-Plant,LUn'it 2),-LBP-78-37; 8)NRC.575) 583-(19.78). . lThe, . .e
~ Petition' does not state! that NEAP zis L. seeking: to interveneLass a f
-(::ontinued. ...-)
1
. _ . ._ . .i. a . J!~,.. . - - .- -4 ~ -- * ' * -
1 (.' .
~6~ .i With respect to NEAP's standing to intervene as an' organization, the-Petition states as follows: r
- 1. NEA? is a corporation withLits principal < place of=
business in Jupiter, Florida andt its a'uxiliary place of business.in Miami,-Florida.. NEAP is-an '
.j environmental organisation withispecific and: 1 primary purposes to operatel for'the advancement of 1 the environment and for other educational
+
- purposes,.by tho' distribution ofifundsEforisuch :{;
purposes, and'particularly for research relative > to the environment' and'the impacts of. technology ' 1 on the environment. >
- 2. NEAP conducts a" majority of' ital bitsinesstat:it's: .!
auxiliary office in' Miami,1 Florida:and'therefore. 1
- is significantly and' adversely affected7and .!
otherwise aggrieved 1by;the' aforementioned license,- .
' actions. The interests of, NEAP 2couldibe l significantly and adversely 1affected<if'a serious 1 nuclear accident occurredLatitheiTurkey Point- 1 nuclear plant as a: direct or" indirect result of Li the aforementioned' license actions..
y 1 Petition-at 2. j y Ej
; NEAP cannot-claim organizationalsstanding~on e ,
thesbasis- " ofthe-locationofitsprincipalplaceofibu'iness(in[ s' Jupiter, h Mr. Saporito has elsewhere stated Jupiter tolbelaboutf83: miles
- j i
w from the Turkey. Point nuclear plant. Engipage?S',tinfIA.i Nor.is m, the-statement that NEAP'"conductsIa.majoritybof its business at j j
., 1 its-auxiliary > office::in Miami'.,. . . isufficient'.'.:Although c.W .
i
' Miami is .within 50 miles of the: Turkey: Point plant',5. the! Petitiono j
,l,i t ~
'does<not disclose-~any information concerning.the nature!oriscopei j r
a t i .
- g. ,
if
- 2/(... continued). ;f l representative o'f anyemember and : refers ;to nolpersonslother thani 7 1 a l Mr.'Saporito. :. IntSubpart B,,below,.1we'show thatthehasinot: ,
1 @P establishedJpersonal" standing. Therefore deven*1f' NEAP is. !] Ji?- claiming; representational:standingf!iti"cannot'do'so?onJbehalf:ofC
~~
' ^i;y KiE
.Mr . E Saporito .~.
\9+ L.
3 i ci 7 1
.' f#. <
'.,3 .. _, '&
lq . m <' 4 g; 3 ..
' i* > lI
l 7 t of the business conducted in Miami; whether such business ; l activity is steady, intermittent or casual; or, indeed, whether the *nuxiliary office" is merely a convenience. established in an effort to support a claim to activities within the geographical !
- sone of interest
- for Turkey Point. 2/ It is,ftherefore, i insufficient to establish standing. '
I rurther, while it may be possible to square the statements that NEAP has Mth a ? principal place of- business" in ! Jupiter, Florida, and an ' auxiliary place of business
- in Miami, Florida, where NEAP " conducts a majority of its business," at a minimum, these statements require explanation. Without such explanation, the claim that HEAP presently' possesses.an
" auxiliary place of-business a in Miami is flatly contracted by Mr. Saporito's sworn deposition testimony in a recent Department of' Labor (" DOL *) proceeding. 1/ On page 16 of deposition, the following exchange is recorded:
Q. Does. NEAP have any other-headquarters or place of business other.than your,home? l A. No,-I'll say no;to that. 4
.\
l The contradictions.are further_ evidenced by a pleading submitted last March by Petitioners in Florida Power'& Liaht co. 1 1/- 'In this connection,ithe Petition. states, on pagejl0, 'that
-it was afs11oned this 25th; day of October-1990 in Miami-. Florida.*-
However, the stationary on which the Petition was, submitted has a-L Jupiter address, and the document 1 fails to-state where it was
-actually-produced.' .
- 1/: Deposition of Thomas J. Saporito,'Jr.,Lin-Thomas J.
.Saporito; Jr. V'. Florida Power & Licht Co.,' Case No. 90-ERA-0027 (May-9,:1990) (PDOL. Deposition").
a a i
- i l
1
. g.
(Turkey Point Plant' Unit Nos. 3 and 4), Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-5 and 50-251-OLA-5 ("0LA-5"), which alleged: NEAP is a non-profit environmental organisation with a primary purpose focused on providing for public safety and.for the ' protection of the environment as a whole regarding Nuclear Power Generation.- NEAP's erineinal Llace of business la in Junitar. Florida which is aceronimatalv G3 milaa from the Turkey Point nuclear niant. . . . 1/ The OLA-5 pleading further~ states that NEAP fears that;the operating license; amendments sought by theLApplicant to revise the Turkey Point technical specifications, will cause the plant to be operated unsafely bece4 6 of relaxed safety margins resulting I in a release of radiation into the enviroranent which will -adversely affect NEAP's real and=Dersonal cronerty located at
~
JM211AI. Florida by radioactive airborne fission products carried by the prevailing-air currents which would contaminate NEAP's' 3 property. OLA-5 Petition at 16 (emphasis added). The OLA-5 proceeding involvedcthe same petitioners and' ' nuclear plant. facilities as the instant petition. Both NEAP:and Licensee extensively litigated the issue of whether or.not NEAP had sufficient organizational interest in proximity to the Turkey Point nuclear plants to meet NRC requirements for standing:to intervene in a license amendment proceeding. Yet,?at no pointLin; the OLA-5 proceeding'did NEAPLindicate that a
- majority of,its
' business" was' located in the Mia.ni area, or that: NEAP possessed
.1/ " Petitioners AmendedIPetition for-Interven51on and Brief in Support Thereof" (Mar. 5,1 1990), at 15 (emphasis supplied) ("OLA--
5 Petition").-
-, . ' - j 2 .:-. _
I !.
i
- 9- l i
an
- auxiliary office" in Miami. 1/ This omission may be .
significant in light of the fact that this issue was directly relevant to claims in OLA-5 that NEAP possessed standing to > intervene as an organisation. ! To be sure, it is possible that the facts have changed' and were different prior to the submission of the instant , I ; Petition. However, given the circumstances, fair dealing clearly required Petitioners to come forward with an explanation of such changes, since both the Commission and'FPL would have to expend significant resources on any hearing which might be initiated. . i l Their failure to do so, we submit, justifies the inference:that 1 L no adequate explanation exists,.or that_ Petitioners' allegations are disingenuous. Finally, if NEAP's attempt to intervene on,its own ,
\
behalf is based-upon the claim that it is an " environment'al organization," intervention should-also be denied. The Supreme
-Court has rejected such grounds for standing, stating:
1 1/ NEAP was denied standing by the Licensing Board and has now appealed. Egg "Brief for Appellants. Nuclear Energy.
' Accountability Project (NEAP) and Thomas J. Saporito, On.
Dismissal of Petition to Intervene" (Sept. 5,'1990).- The weight of available information. places the location of much of NEAP's, , activities in Jupiter, Florida.-- not Miami. For' example, the . Petition lists.a post office box in Jupiter'as> NEAP's. address. Petition-at 10. A' NEAP flier, a copy of which was attached to ;
- Licensee's Answer in Opposition-to Request.for Hearing and '
-Petition for Leave to Intervene" (Jan. 10, 1990),, submitted in OLA-5, lists NEAP's address as 1202 Sioux Street,z Jupiter, Florida.- And Mr.-Saporito has, himself,-stated that NEAP is :
" located lin Jupiter, Florida.'" Eng~ Affidavit of Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr., at 1-(Feb. 28, 1990),'which was attached to the OLA-5 Petition. 7 j. _ ., u u. _ _ . _ _ _ , , - . . . - _ - , _ _ _ _ - . . . - ,
.i l
0 i 1 l 10.. ! l ! [A) mere " interest in a problem,".no matter. how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organisation is in u evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organisation'* adversely affected" or " aggrieved"-within the meaning = of the APA. ... [I)f a "special interest" in this subject were enough to entitle the Sierra Club to commence this litigation, there would appear.to be no-objective basis upon which to disallow a suit by any otherL bona fide a speial interest" organisation however small or short-lived..:And if-any group with a bona fide:"special; interest" could initiate such litigation, it is difficult:to perceive whyc any' individual - citizen with the same bona fide speial interest would not also be entitled to do so. sierra club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). _This ho'. ding; is applied in NRC proceedings.- 333, gig 2, Nuclear Engineering Cat (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal i Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC.737, 741-42.(1978); Portland General
. \
. Electric, 4-NRC at 613-14; A111ad-General Nuclear Earvices (Barnwell' Fuel Re;eiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 5 NRC 420, 421-23 (1976).
NEAP's. petition to intervene on this veryfsame basis was rejected in OLA-5.by the Licensing Board, wh'ich stated: Should we grant,Mr. Saporito's motion to withdraw,sthe issue ~of. standing either ofsthe organisation1by-itself.or-based on other memberstof NEAP' would no~1ongeribe moot.. Of~these.
; questions,. lack of; standing of tho' organisation;isistraightforward'. .We are
- convinced that NEAP:does not>havel standing as an oraanimation since.it'is merely claiming;a' generalized; ,
grievance -- alleged' danger from a L j. L 1 f I l y
}
~ .
- . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ....._. _ _ _ . _ . _ __ __ _ _ _ . . _ . . . ~ - _ _ _ - . _ _ _
~ I l
.I
' =
. 11 i f
nuclear power plant .. that is shazed by t the general public. 1/ 1 Consequently, the Petition has not established NEAP's standing to intervene. , t B. 'The Allegations Made in the Petition Are Insufficient i on Their Face to Support Mr. Saporito's Standing, Are Ambiguous, and Appear to Contradict Statements Made conearnina mim in othme 71ec -otnam r i With respect to the personal standing of Mr. Saporito', the Petition states as follows: f i
- 3. Thomas J. Saperito, Jr. lives and works in and about the City of.Miarl,. Florida'as the Executive Director of.
NEAP and as a sAlf-employed' individual with'the Airflow: l Service Corporttion.- The interests of1Mr. Saporito 4 could be significantly and adversely affected if a ; serious nucle ar accident' occurred at the , Turkey Point . nuclear plant as a direct or indirect result of the ; aforementionesd license actions. ' Petition at 2. First, the meaning of this statement is unclear. While a recitation-that a person " lives and works-in and about" a- ., particular locality would ordinarily be taken to mean that.his , principal activities are conducted in that locality,-those words l may mean different things to different people and,Jat a. minimum, ' the meaning: intended should not simp.'y'be' assumed.- This11s especially.true when legal rights turn upon that meaning.' For example " works in and about' in designated capacities!does not establish what that work consists of, whether.that, work is intermittent'in' nature, or whether some portion, perhaps most,_of~
- 2/ Nemorandum knd Order,. slip Op. at 6 (Apr. 24, 1990) *
(emphasis'in original). i i 4 c. t
.- ~ . .-..__.- . ._ _ . . - . . . -.
_-.,3,4.. ..._-_m.- , , - . _ .J[- ~. . , ., , A . . 4 -
- '.j
l i . l l the work is done "in and about" some other place. Nor does the l term " lives" exclude the possibility that the person referred to also " lives" at one or more additional locations, or that most of ; i his domestic activity is carried on elsewhere. i Second, despite the fact that Petitioners claim Mr. [ Saporito " lives" in Miami, the Petition fails to' indicate Mr. i Saporito's Miami home address. The'only address listed on the ' Petition is that of NEAP in Jupiter. Petition:atel, 10. In, l t contrast, information submitted by Petitioners _in OLA-5 states ; i that Mr. Saporito " resides'at 1202 Sioux Street, Jupiter, Florida r l 33458 along with his wife and three children." A/ Moreover, ' i only six weeks ago, Petitioners filed an appeal brief in OLA ; 1 which also reters to Mr. Saporito's residence in Jupiter. A/ j Third, the Petition fails to indicatt_the nature, ! frequency or duration of any activities Mr.; Saporito conducts "in and about Miami" on behalf of. NEAP or the Airflow Service , Corporation ("ASC"). With respect to NEAP, that point has already been addressed. The same type of questions at; raised L > with respect to any claim.to standing. based on Mr.'Saporito's 4 employment with'ASC. 10/ Th'e'locationLof ASC in Jupiter ja- l l A/ Egg OLA-5 Petition at 9^(Mar. 5, 1990).- i _1/. Egg "Brief for Appellanta Nuclear Energy-Accountability-Project.(NEAP):and Thomas J.'3aporito,.On Dismissal of' Petit. ion to Intervene" at.12 (Sept. 5, 1990)'. L 10/: InLa:recent NRC. proceeding, Petitioners described Mr.: , s Saporito as-the President and Chief: Executive. Officer ofLASC. !
' Egg " Clarification of Contentions and Answer to: Licensee's: .
.(continued...): !
,o r :
., f
, y
confirmed by Mr. Saporito in his DOL deposition. In that i deposition, the following exchange took place between FPL counsel and Mr. Saporito: i Q. Are you affiliated with'any other group or organization or employer? ( A. I have a private business. Q. And what is that? A. Air Flow Service Corporation. Q. And what is the address of that business? A. The same address ~as my residence. M /- t Counsel-for FPL~ eventually established, at pages 6-10 of the deposition, that ASC had been formed by Mr. Saporito three years earlier under a different corporate name'and.that,.in-three 'I years of existence, ASC ha.1 revenues estimated by Mr. Saporito as approximately $600-$700. ; Taken in their entirety, the corporate l'ocation of ASC i at Mr. Saporito's'retidence in Jupiter, the lack of specific' information in the Pe;ition as to'just what Mr. Saporito's work with ASC consists of,.and the level of revenues reported.as being generated by ASC combine to suggest that the " employment" of Mr. t Saporito by ASC.does not constitute-substantial activity "in and l about" Miami. - ( 10/(... continued)- Response'in Opposition to NEAP /Saporito Petition-for' Leave.to <
, Intervene" at 4~(Nov. 16, 1989), submitted'in Florida Power-O l Licht Co. (Turkey Point Units 3 and 4), Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-4 and 50-251-OLA-4 ("0LA-4"). '
n/
~
DOL Deposition at 4-5. l
.- -. - . a. . - - _
. ~ . - . - -..-.-. . - - - . - - . . - . . ._ . - - - - . - . . -
.- ( .. -. - -
l l i
^
l
\
In sum, Mr. Saporito's claim that he alives and works: f in and about Miami" is, sven read in isolation,-inadequate to f I establish sufficient contacts within the geographical ' sone of l interest
- to confer standing upon him for;the purposes of the instant Petition. This conclusion-is strengthened when the !
i claims in the Petition are contrasted with the statements made.by j Mr. Saporito in other. proceedings. i i IV. The Petitioners Have Not Submitted Even One Admissible i contention l 1 t A. Standards for an admissible Contention ' under 10 CFR $ 2.714'(b)(1), a petitioner is-required , to submit a list of contentions prior to the prehearing-conference on the petition'to intervene. That'section further i provides that "[a] petitioner who fails to-fileLa' supplement that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)Tof this'section i with respect to at least one Contention;will'not be~ permitted:to 1 participate as a party." l 10 CFR $12.714,(b)(2) sets forth the standards'forsan. 4 [ admissible Contention. . The provision statess. ; r Each Contention must consist of a specific statement-of-the; issue of-law or fact.to be! raised or controverted. 'In; addition, the-petitionerJahalleprovide the I+ following information with' respect _ to'each' Contention: ' (1) A'brief' explanation of-the bases.ofathe: ! Contention.> -i A \ s d t f
., at
. , _ , , , , , - , . . . . -. ~ , _ . - .
_ . ~ _ _ _ . - _ ___ _ _____. _ _ __._ __ _ _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _ I i l I (11) A concise statement of the alleged facts or expert i opinion which support the Contention and on which ! the petitioner intends to rely in. proving the o Contention at the hearing, together with-g references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the ' ' i petitioner intends to rely to establish'those l facts or expert opinion. , (iii) sufficientLinformation.(which may include ; l information pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2) 1) and'
- 1) of this section) to show thatLa genu no. '(
spute exists with the applicant:onia material ~ issue of' law or fact. This showing must-include [ t references to the specific portions of the applicationL(including the applicant's-environmental report and safety report).that'the petitioner disputes'and the supporting reasons for' ; each dispute, or, if the~ petitioner. believes that the application fails:to contain information on'a .! relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and tho' supporting > reasons for the. petitioner's' belief. On issues ; arising under'the National. Environmental Policy- l Act, the petitioner shallifile Contentions based on the applicant's. environmental report.. The petitioner. can amend ~ those contentions or file new q contentions if thereLare data:or conclusions in- : the 'NRC draf t' or final environmental impact ( statement, environmental _ assessment, or: any i
~
supplements relating,thereto, that' differ . significantly from the~ data;or conclusions in thel applicant's document.
- h Additionally,.10 CFR $ 2.714 (d)(2)Lstates'that a licensing board i shall ,
refuse'to admit a Contention?ift I h (i) The Contention andl supporting.' material. fail to: 1 satisfy the requiremente of-paragraph (b)(2)1of , R this section; ors
-(ii) The' Contention, if proven' , wouldlbe t of no consequence in.the proceeding because it would not- .
entitle petitionerito rc11af.' Theseprovisionsin:10LCFR.S2.714jb)(2)1and$12.714- .f (d)(2)lwere:recently added.toothe commission's: rules /of practice.D1 >
. 1 lq
', ., V i
' . . t a. .< . _ _ . ~ .
I f t San 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (Aug. 11, 1989). As stated by the
- Commission, their purpose is to " raise the threshold for the
admission of Contentions to require the proponent of the
- Contention to supply information showing the existence of a !
- 1. ,
i genuine dispute with the applicant on an issue of law or fact." l Id. I a In particular, the standards of the new rule are more 1 i stringent than previous Commission standards for an admissible Contention, which only required that "the bases for each l Contention (be) set forth with reasonable specificity. " Saa ' 10 CFR S 2.714 (b) (1989). Noveover, these new standards should be applied here within the context of the especially strict standards which govern operating license amendment proceedings l where a hearing is not mandatory. In a proceeding where a hearing is not required, there is an "especially strong reason" why a " licensing board should take the utmostJeare.to satisfy itself fully that there is at least one contention advanced in the petition which, on its. face,. raises an issue clearly open to adjudication in the' proceeding." . cincinnati cas 1 Electric co. s (William H. timmer Nuclear Power Station),:ALAB-305,E 3.NRC 8, 12 I (1976) quoting Gulf-States Utilities C?2 (RiverLBend Station,- 1
. Units 1 and 2)',=ALAB-183,17 AEC 222,,226 no. 10 (1974)).
-B. LPetitioners' Proposed' Contentions do not Satisfy tho' Standards'for' admissible contentions Every Contention proposed by Petitioners failszto ,i (provide: adequate' substantiation, as' required by 10 CFR.SSL2.714: U 1
4
. a
'I t
l .O l I l \ (b)(1) and (ii). Further, a number of the Contentions suffer l l from additional infirmities, such as failing to address written ; l analyses provided by FPL in its amendment application, as required by 10 CFR 2.714 (b)(2)(iii). As a result, Petitioners i have failed to proffer even one' proper Contention. f
- l. Proposed Contention 1 ;
i Proposed Contention 1' alleges-that the license- I amendments sought by FPL are major' Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. As a result, Petitioners contend that the NRC must issue:an Environmental Impact. Statement ('EIS"). The only support offered for the-
. l i
. Contention are allegations, contained in the " Basis for contention," that (1) "the [NRC) staff'has notesubmitted a No- _
Significant Hazards Evaluation for the Applicant's;1icense ; amendment requests but has merely affirmed the Applicant's ! submittal of No Significant Hazards,." and (2) the requested amendments "would provide-for a significant reltxation of ; existing, operational safety margins a which'"could result in unsafe plant operation and a release of radioactive fission. i products into the environment;" , In~ fact, however,.the NRC_ Staff hka prepared its own ; i Proposed No.Significant'Har.ards: Con' sideration' Determination. 333- ] .; SS Fed. Reg.-39,331.- While agreeing with\ Licensee'stoverallt
.I conclusion that theLrequested' amendments involve no significant ~ ;
~ hazards' consideration, the Staff's evaluationLtakes. issue'with
;}
f.
,, ']-
2' r.i ' . [ fu
. _ l J.,' .
.J., .~.m
^
_-..- , - & a
1 l i I and supplements certain details of FPL's analysis. SAS, tiAA, I idt at 39,334. More significantly, however, nowhere do Petitioners , even attempt to explain how the alleged bases of the. contention are linked to the claim that the amendments involve a " major Federal action." Further, no sources oflexpert opinion or other support for Petitioner's position are offered.- In the absence of { i i bases and support, as required by 10 CFR $$ 2.714 (b)(2)(1) Land. j l (ii), the Contention should be rejected. 1
- 2. Pronosed Contention 2 !
This Contention alleges the need for an environmental i assessment ("EA"). After citing that section of NRC regulations which provides that, in_"special circumstances," an EA'may be - prepared when a categorical exclusion applies (see,10 CFR'S-51.22 , L (b)), Petitioners repeat, as' bases for Contention 2, the two; y alleged bases discussed-above in connection with' Contention 1. ,
-In fact,.the EPS upgrade amendments di appearlto qualify for a categorical exclusion from:any need:for the- [
preparacion of either-an EIS (nr an EA. In particular, 10 CFR S151.2't (c)(9) provides alcategorical. exclusion' fort - Issuance of an amendment toLa= '
^
permit'or license for a reactor pursuant to,Part 50 of this chapter 1
.which changes:a requirement;with respect'to installation or use of a~ -
facility component located.withint the restricted, area,1as defined?in- '
- Part 20;of-this. chapter, or which- ,
4 changes lan-inspection or a , L 4 , r , M' . , ,
/h. d.. .2.._.
I { i 6 l surveillance requirement, provided ! that ( ) the amendment involves no i signif cant hasards consideration,. ! (ii) there is no significant change [ in.the. types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released : offsite,_and:(lii) there is no # significant increase in' individual or cumulative occupational- 1 radiation. exposure. c , i Assuming that the NRC Staff issues aEfinal. determination that the ! l
- amendments involve no significant hazards consideration,.they weald satisfy.each of the criteria in 10 CFR S 51;22 (c)(9)'for a_ j r If no such finding'is made, presumably
categorical exclusion. t i the NRC Staff:will issue an EA.
' Insofar as the bases offered in support.of the Contention are concerned,'nowhere do' Petitioners even attemptcto address the "special circumstances" referred to in'S'51.22 (b) applicable to the preparation of an EA'inLtheLface of a $
, categorical exclusion. -Further, the Contention and'its proffered; l bases are in error and otherwise inadequate =for the reasons I discussed above in connection'with Contention 1. iAccordingly, Contention 2 should be" rejected. *
.. 't
- 3. Pronosed contention'3
}>
This ' Contention ' states t j The design of the Applicant's Emergency ^ Power System provides,.for an'intertie between.the twoJTurkey
. Point nuclear: unite"=upplying an alternate AC: power supplyito_a'blac!.out unit throughlthe use of an a operating-Emergency Diesel. Generator.(EDG).on the-non-blackout unit.' -
t i h
- t j
i J l j l The Applicant' failed to address the alternate AC , intertie in their Technical Specifications. The i failure of this intertie to operate properly when : challenged could result in a serious nuclear accident l releasing fission products into the environment because .. the Applicant cannot ensure-the operability of the ! necessary Station Blackout equipment. t Thereafter, five documents are listed asL" Basis For Contention. { 3." l Petitioners fail to mention, however,<that, as indicated on page 2 of the FPL Emergency Power System Enhancement ; Project No'Significant Hazards: Evaluation-(included as Attachment 1 to the July 2,.1990 Letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory , i Commission, Attn Document Control' Desk,-from W.H. Bohlke (FPL) i ("FPL NSH Evaluation")), appropriate testingfand' surveillance, to. ensure operability of SBO equipment, are required within plant-I procedures. Further,;nowhere do Petitioners offer any, - i' s explanation, whatsoever,-of how the five lis'ted-documents, i L ~! j presented as bases,-portain'to their^ Contention;that:the AC' t intertie necessitates additional TSF nor is'there,a description T l of expert opinion or particularized documentary; support. Since it:thus failsoto meet the requirements of,10;CFR"$$-2.714-(b)(2)(1) and-(ii), Contention 3 shc"ld be rejec'ted, j i
- 4. Pronosed contention 4 1 ,
t
~This Contention) simply statesk L - '
f The, Applicant'sl amendment request would. relax i ex!stin'g. plant'safetyimarginsLat-TS' 3/4.8.121.:AC; ; SOUhCES - OPERATING'which currently require:the testing; ;
'ofstha< redundant' Emergency Diesel. Generators after any-l
-ns j l'c *
, 4 n
y 1;
, t , m-
- t J l i
+
1 i failure or any problem which renders the EDG' l inoperable, j As bases, Petitioners. offer the following , l t
- 1. The current requirement to test thel redundant EDG(s) after any. failure or any problem which renders the EDG. inoperable is to demonstrate that'the redundant 1 EDG(s) are, in. fact, fully operational and free from.
any similar problem or any new problem which may have ; been created as a direct or indirect result;of the i repair to the failed EDG. !
- 2. Therefore, it is not acceptable to; provide an exemption to this testing when an EDG is' taken: out of ';
service for proplanned preventive maintenance or testing. Since EDG(s) are essential safety equipment' required to mitigate a' serious. nuclear accident, there is an increase in the probability of a previously , analyzed accident. ! As is clear on.their face, however, the Contention and- 1 its alleged bases confuse theLfactsiand. contradict each other.. Contrary to the Contention and Petitioners' first
- basis,the !
proposed modification to TS does not reduce; redundant:EDG testing t
"af ter. any f ailure or problem" with 'an1EDG 'which' renders the' EDG i inoperable" (emphasis added), at all. In fact,:the' pertinent TS .l v
have nothing.directly to do with failurer.or problems, but deal solely with pre-planned EDG maintenance or. tasting.. Saa 55 Fed. Reg. 39,335. LAs explained in the NRCfStaff Proposed No j Significant Hazards' Consideration Determination (" Staff Proposed-NSHC Determination"): , Consistent with'the STS and= current-NRC guidance, ' testing of.the. redundant ' EDGs) EDGs' are to be perfo(i.e. , ' remaining rmed'after required . any; failure.or.any= ' 1 problem'which renders the EDGLinoperable'. .1The purpose ;
- of this testing is to demonstrate thst the1 redundant
'1 EDGs-have not been: degraded by a similar problem. Mhan -
an EDG'is intentionally taken out of service, the<above lt concern does not exist. . Therefore, ittis, acceptable-to ;
'l
-~" -_
;h )
1__.__._ _ _ J
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._- .__ _ _ _ -
( > l l . l - 22 - f 6 provide an exemption to this testing when an EDG is i l taken out of service for pre-planned preventive i maintenance or testing. Reducing the number of j i unnecessary EDG tests is in accordance with Generic , Letter 84-15 and current NRC guidance. 11/- ' Id2 (emphasis supplied). , t Since the proposed Contention is without basis,-and' [ because. Petitioners have failed to-identify an expert' opinion or, any other support upon which they can' rely, it'should be rejected pursuant to 10 CFR $$.2.714-(b)(2)(1)-and-(11).
- 5.- Proposed Contention 5 ,
{ This contention states as follows: ; As evidenced at page-27 of the Applicant's NSHE,' ! TS 3/4.8.1.1 AC SOURCES - OPERATING providesLfor-a ; deletion -' verification of the cranking, diesel- l generators OPERABILITY-has;been: removed.from' ACTIONS "a"tand "d".. The requirement to; repeat >EDG: OPERABILITY ll1 demonstrations"on a 24-hour frequency,ito verify compliance with LCO 3.8.2.1, and-to implement a dual !. unit shutdown is deleted from ACTIONS, "b":and "d".. 1 The dual unit shutdown requirement in ACTION."c",'which addresses the-inoperability'of;a EDG due-to the-
't I performance ~of Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.'2c, is?
L deleted 11n;its entirety. This deletion.is agrelaxation y of an existingsplant= safety margin and therefore should' . I not be permitted.
- l The followingfare then offered as " Basis for Contention 5:" .
~
^
s 12/ Emergency dieselLgenerator! testing' bas!been' evaluate'd by'the
. industry and'NRC for over-six yearsLunder GenericiLetter 84-15.
t The results~of this. evaluation-and subsequent NRClguidancei
. indicate that excessive. testing of emergency diesel' generators !
,' can? reduce 1the availability of this. standby power source. Hence', ,
- testingLrequirements that were determined to be unnecessary:were< ;
removedrin the industry STS.s This STS.improvementz is being J requested'for the Turkey. Point-diesel:generaters11n the~ subject
" amendments.- m i
l.' 4 ,
, . + , ,
.i, , Al 'i; Lf
, ) ,1: - { l, ' .. >
W '
. ...-. _._,i " ~. . a . -- --
A- ~ ' + ~ ~ - ~ * * * ' " " ~ " " ' '*
, . . , . t i i-I l
- 1. The elimination of a dual unit shutdown,_ )
where appropriate, involves a reduction ~in the margin , of safety of plant operation.
- 2. Operation,of the facility in accordance with- l the proposed; amendment'would: involve a'significant :
reduction in a margin of safety. The cranking diesels will remain. electrically connected with.the plants' i
- safety systems and.therefore this equipment'should not- .!
l- be_ deleted from the TS.. ! Taken alone, Contention 5 is simply incomprehensible.' l When read.together with the statements which are presented as { L bases, Petitioners appear'to be taking_the position that- '
~
(1) elimination'of the need to have two cranking , i, l diesels as backups, and i 1 ! l (2) elimination of the need for: shutdown'of both ! Turkey Point. Units on the loss of'one EDG, l represent unacceptable " reduction (s) in_the. margin ^of safety."' 1 Such a position, however, is wholly'without support.x? Accord- ! l ingly, the contention must be rejected on the basis of 10 CFR ; SS 2.714 (b)(2)(1),.(ii) and -- an'discussedLbelow -- 10 CFR l SS_2.714 (b)(2)(iii), as well.
.. t As explained, in detail, in the NRC Staff' Proposed NSHC
]
Determination,-the current Turkey Point design employsstwo ~ s o safety-grade EDGs, with any-two outsof five non-safety cranking , diesels available as-backup. In the proposedidesign,cthe plant
, will have!four safety-grade EDGs,[with the non-safety cranking -
diesels available as:further backup.- 'The;two additional safety
' EDGs will'have a complete set of TSiand,lthus,troplace:the j
4 k 5 'I
, . ,. . - . , . . , - - . . . , . .. l. - , . - . . . . . . -
- - - - ~ , . . ,
4 cranking diesels with higher capability and more reliable equipment. San 55 Fed. Reg. 39,336. I The cranking diesels will be maintained and available , as a secondary backup power source. A requirement for i surveillance of the cranking diesels every 18 months is imposed j i on page 3/4 7-11 of the current TS, which will not be changed, f However, it is no longer necessary for tho'TS to' require a , demonstration of the operability of the cranking diesels when a ! safety EDG and/or startup transformer is-inoperable. The deletion of this requirement is more than compensated for by the two additional safety EDGs which are required to be operable as i described in the proposed TS.-~333 it. With respect'to dual unit shutdown, in the existing design, both EDGs are required.for single unit or dual unit ~ operation. This results in both units being impacted-- simultaneously by the loss of an:EDG, Under.the.new,-four EDG ,
- configuration, however, only three EDGs.-(two associated with the' I operating unit and one from the opposite unit) will be required ,
~
for single unit operation. When both units are at power, all- l four EDGs must be operable. .In this. case, which:is the only-operating configuration where a dual-unitishutdown'would be of
. concernj a loss of one'EDG would only impact the unit associated j with the EDG.-- assuming all other TS requirements;for the out- .-
of-service opposite unit were) satisfied. Therefore, the~ deletion-4 of dual unit: shutdown' requirements.is appropriate!in-view of-the" y
- planned EPS design modification. ~ San FPL'.NSHi Evaluationat: 28.
~
.a. r+.- h e a-+-w **w-< e
1
-)
l s ;
)
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Contention i 1 . 5 is without bases. In addition, Petitioners have failed to l L identify any expert opinion or other support upon which they can. l l L rely. Further, Petitioners have neither identified any errors or l 1 other deficiencies in NRC Staff or-FPL analyses,Lnor have they' l offered any foundation for even~a suggestion that1there are such. Accordingly, contention 5 should be rejected'on-the basis of- ; 10'CFR $$_2.714 (b)(2)(1), (ii).and (111). f
- 6. Proposed contention 6 ,
This Contention states: As evidenced'in the Applicant's NSHE:st page,37, a I relaxation incorporated of anin existing the TS;3 /4.8.1.1 AC1 SOURCES -plant safety margin will be: OPERATIONS.' Relaxations - Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2a.3: I which' required verification that a fuel transfer; pump; L started and-transferred fuel from the storage, tank to l the day tank in accordance with the frequency 1of Table' ! l 4.8-1 is' revised and renumbered as 4'.8.1.'1.2b; . This - revised version requires a. demonstration on a=92 day .i frequency with an automatic. start. " i The following " Basis for Contention 6" is offered ' L .
- 1. The intent of this surveillance is;to ensure' b y that the fuel transfer system will function;as. designed- -
I- by automatically. transferring fuel from the storage : j tank to the day tank when a prodetermined low level;is reached in the day-tank. The system is' designed to L l < automatically _ maintain an adequate fuel supplyfto;the' ' EDG>during extended' operation. '
- )
?The'most importantiaspect of.thisLsurveillance isi ;
the frequency lof testingsto' ensure: proper operability
- of the automatic function of the designiand to ensure a-proper fuel supply in the day tank.' Therefore',;tho'
~
y ' frequency?of testing-should" remain unchanged.and:the
' length lof the_EDG test run should be' increased to
~
. permit'the functional testing of the; automatic' design !
ferturelof the system.- i o I e T
. t
t ~ t l . t i a Petitioners apparently object to the proposed decrease i in fuel transfer pump test frequency to once overy 92 days. ! According to their own " Basis," however,-"The most important f aspect of this surveillance is the. frequency of testing to ensure croner enerability of the automatic function'of the damian and to'
]
ansure a croner fuel sunniv in-the day tank." within this l . I context, however, Petitioners fail to note'that a primary purpose , of the r.ew requirement is, In. iact, to address this precise matter. As specifically described'in the FPL NSH Evaluation, The intent of this surveillance is to ensure that the fuel transfer system will function-asidesigned by j ggtematically transferrina fuel from the storaan tank l to the day tank when a predetermined: low level t is F reached in the day tank. The system is designed:to - '
- l. automatically maintain'an' adequate;fue1Laupply to the L EDG during'an extended run. The aristina surveillance i I: did not require that the automatic annect of this function be demonstrated and because of the fraouanev of this surveillance and the-relatively short EDG run time associated with the surveillance.-most of the recuired pump starts _are manual. The revised- !
murveillance better demonstrates the OPERABILITY of the l dazion by reauirina the test'to demonstrata the pumn's i auto-start capability. .; FPL'NSH Evaluation at-37-38f(emphasis added). 'Accordingly,1to the extent'that Petitioners maintain that the:new surveillance
]
requirement is improper because it fails to test the~automatice i functions of the transfer pump,Lthe' contention:is without'hases-or-otherisupport and~should be:rejecte' dunder 10:CFR $$ 2.714-
~
r
.(b)(2)(1) and (11). Further,.as!Petitionersihave failed to identify any particular errors or'other' deficiencies inthe FPL-s ji +
, . . . . . . . , , -, -. - - n.-. -
Evaluation, the Contention fails to meet the requirements of 10 l CFR f 2.714 (b)(2)(iii) and is, therefore, improper. j In addition, if the gravamen of the proposed con *ntion ! is that any relaxation of transfer pump surveillance' frequency is , improper, the contention is deficient in that-Petitioners have not demonstrated that they are entitled to any relief.- The fact- l that certain requirements are relaxed or that certain margins-are r i reduced does not mean that the revised requirements are. j necessarily unacceptable. Petitioners have not alleged,.and have i not provided any basis for an allegation, that the' proposed relaxation in test frequency would violate any NRC regulation or s requirement. Further, they have not otherwise provided any basis, whatever, for a claim that the relaxation would pose an undue risk to the public health and safety. . Therefore, the i Contention is~ inadmissible under 10 CFR S 2.714 (d)(2)(li),'which [ states that a licensing board shall refuse to admit 1a. proposed-contention in situations where, if proven,'the proposed-contention a would be of no consequence in the proceeding because' L it would not entitle petitioner:to relief.* I i
?
P F a h
. _ . _ '. c..! -, f _ _
t . -j
-< i 28 - ,
t l
- 7. Proposed contention 7 This Contention and its. purported bases are presented i
L as follows:
}
CONTENTION 7 . . I
\
l As. evidenced in the Applicant's NSHE at page 59, ' l Surveillances 4.8.2.lc and a have been deleted. l Surveillances 4.8.2.1cLrequired rotating the pilot cell -! l and checking water level every 31 days. Surveillance i 4.8.2.le required performance of a battery. charger visual inspection quarterly.m Also, the requirement to verify a battery charger equalising charge is started,- found in Notes l'and'2 of Table 4.8-2, has been deleted. These deletions represent a significant - reduction of the safety margin currently established in i the TS and could result in-the failure ofLthe-EDG when challenged. BASIE-FOR CONTENTION 7 L 1. lThe probability-or consequences.of a' previously evaluated accident is significantly increased as a direct result.of this.TS deletion. f a 2.- The_ Applicant fail'ed to addressLany ~ parameters or indicators by which the plant oprators . would be required to initiate an. equalising charge on the batteries.. 3., The current requirement toLrotate the pilot 1 cell and check battery water level.every 31. days is ;
. essential in ensuring that:the batteries are maintained !
in a:satisfacto n. state ofireadiness:and thatEthey'will " perform when challenged. l Much of the. contention appears to; simply have been-
; copied-from:the FPL NSH'Evaluationior the'NRC' Staff's; Proposed; i
', ~
- NSHC Determination. .As w ti h other/ Contentions, however, ,
' Petitioners lhave ignored the; Licensee's'and: Staff's' analyses of:
l
, 'the proposed. amendments.
,c '
'f i d i
a , m n < .+' ' ~ 4
, i
..,c.. .1-.~,,. . .. : . _ - , - ..
l .. ' i
- 29'-
Rotating the pilot cell, checking water level, visual inspection of the battery charger, and. equalizing battery l charging are all in the nature of' maintenance activities, and do= l< not verify either battery or charger operability. Thut, changes I ! in these requirements have no effect on plant' safety. Saa 55m i Fed. Reg. 39,366; FPL NSH Evaluation, pp.:59-60.- i. Further, TS Surveillance'4.8.2.la contains'a-requirement for verifying pilot cell electrolyte. level weekly. As a result, redundant pilot' cell' requirements'are verified'avery? week, not just monthly. Battery condition,Litself, is evaluated by the periodic checking'of cell specific gravity. .Esttery . chargers are utilized to perform an equalizing: charge 1,o conform with the operability requirements of=the-TS. Saa, Rigt,'55 Fed.. Reg. 39,336-37;.FPL.NSH Evaluation,,pp.159-60. In view of.the discussion and analyses contained"in the. FPL NSH Evaluation and NRC Staff. Proposed NSHCIDetermination, sit 1 l is clear that Petitioners havej .in fact, provided,no: bases cut support'for Contention 7, whatsoever. Thus, Contention 7'should
~
be rejected ~ pursuant to 10 CFR.S$_2;714 (b)(2)(i) and (ii).- Further', having failed to identify errors-or deficiencies in the-l1 FPL and Staff' analyses, the Contention is improper'under 10 CFRiSL 2 714.(b)(2)(iii)-and should not be. accepted;- d l-e V. Conclusion
,The Petition does not demonstrate Petitioners standing ~ y to. intervene as a matter offright;and Petitionersihave' failed to i
Ib a
. i ( i I I .
- 30 - !
i submit an admissible contention. Consequently, the Petition i should be denied. l Respe fully. submitted, dp , . Harold F. Re;.5 ' Michael A. Bauser - James Vigil, Jr. Newman'&.Holtsinger, P.C. 1615 L' Street, N.W. ; Washington, D.C. 20036 f (202) 955-6600-Cc-Counsel Steven Carr, Esq. 4 Senior Attorney Florida' Power & Light Company Post Office' Box 14000 , l Juno Beach, Florida 33408 i Dated this 9th day-of November 1990. ' I
?
I l o h I i i f 4 4 4.) 1
, # 's
., e .,
. v w a , ., 4I-, , , e -, . L.~a--, .-.-+w--,
'""'d
! .I i i I .I
- t xnute UbHKC \
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l suCLsAR mzoVIATORY CONNISy!ON l
% t0V 13 N0:45
) ,rs ter N Sickt itay In the Matter.of ;00 Chill
; [Qg';jisVif:
I -
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 COMPANY ) 50-251- :
) :
(Turkey point Plant, .) l Units 3 and 4 ) i
) i r
mortca OF APPEAR &McE OF 00tDIRE$. ; e Notice is hereby given that-MichaelLA.:Bauser enters an appearance as counsel for Florida Power & Light Company in the. t above-captioned proceeding. Names Michael A. : Bauser [ Address: Newman & Holtsinger, P.C. 1615 L Street,.N.W. ' ' Suite 1000 l Washington,LD.C.- 20036: ! Telephone: (202).955-6600
. Admissions: United States Court of Appeals.for i
the District of Columbia circuit Name of Party: ' Florida Power &. Light. Company, Post. Office Box 14000. . Juno Beach, Florida 33408 ' l 2 ._ Michael A.'Babser. V i t Newman &'Holtsinger, P.C. 1615 L Sttee., N.W;. { Suite 1000- . W a s h i n g t o n ,: D . C . . 20036 Date - November 9, 1990' t i i
-{
;{3 <
3 Ul ->
, N; L,.., - . ~ , ~ . . _ . . - - . . . . . - - ~ ... - : L ~. . ... x =-
r curtso svaras oF ausarca - L woctuam assoLaroar comuzaszou i giffL' ; In the Matter of
'90 NOV 13 A10:45
) (
)
FI4RIDA POWER & LIGHT ) i COMPANY .) DocketNat(IC50'259stitJY 5 I Ud K f'f' $ "VIbf f
) ;
(Turkey. Point Plant, ) [ Units 3 and 4) ) >
) !
NOTICE OF APPEAkaMcE OF.00DMSEL - 1 Notice is hereby given that Steven Carr enters an appearance 1 as co-counsel for Florida Power - &' Light . Company in the above- - 4 captioned proceeding. < i Name Steven Carr o Address: 700 Universe Boulevard Room 3712 Juno Beach,. Florida 33408 Telephone (407) 694-3846 Admissions: United States District Court, ! District:of-Kansas : Unit'ed States District court Southern District of Florida ! United States District Court' .[ Middle District of Florida- '
-United States Court of Appeals for t the Tenth Circuit of Florida i United States Court of Appeals for !
the Eighth-Circuit-of Florida- ! L Name.of Party: Florida Power &^ Light. Company. 4 Post office. Box-14000- - Juno Beach, Florida- 33408
/ =
Li Steven Carr-s
}
)
700 Universe Boulevard
' Room'3712.. .
;i
. Juno Beach, Florida. 33408' d Dater Novembe r - .7 ', 1990 'l i 1
.L
- t. !-
5
----____._l.-.- . _ _ , - __u . . _ . ,... . . , . . . .
^
, . _- . . . - , . , . . . - , + , . -.,.c- , ,
h s ! l . Iot r.t ;i 0 ) V:>NiiC - ; i UNITED STATES oF AMERICA l wucLsAR mEouxaToRr coMurssxon i
% NOV 13 A10:45 1
'l !
) GlittUFt,[CRIARY i in the Matter of ) accKrlmu A stovut
) hRANC6i FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ). Docket Nos. 50-250 COHPANY ) 50-251
) .
(Turkey point Plant, ) Units 3 and 4 ') -)
) i
) )
I McTicE OF APPEARAMCE OF.0DHMEEL Notice is hereby given that Harold F. Reis enters an appearance as-counsel for Florida Power & Light Company.in the ' abovc-captioned proceeding. Names Harold F. Reis L Address: .Newman_& Holtzinger, P.C. ; 1615'L Street,-N.W. .
.i Suite l1000 Washington, D.C. _20036 Telephones- _(202) 955-6600-Admissions: United States Court of' Appeals for -
the District of Columbia Circuit Name of Party: Florida Power &' Light Company Post Office Box 14000- , Juno-Beach, Florida -33408: l I H&rold F. Reis' f Newman &-Holtsinger, P.C. 1615LL' Street,'N.W.- 4 1 Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036, , Date s ; November: 9, -1990: 1
~
a
}
l
'l
! utkl.!L D l UbHRC
, \
- UNITED STATES or AMERICA i wucLun mEovIAToRr couwIsstow % Nov 13 N0:45 ;
l a l QFifCf.OFSIUd1AW l i ) 00CK[ ling A Si0VlCI l In the Matter of BRt NcH
)
) .
L FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 ! I COMPANY ) 50-251 :
) -!
(Turkey point Plant, ) !
. Units 3 and 4 )
) +
l. ! .t MoricE OF APPEARAMcE OF CotfMBEL ;
<0 Notice is-hereby given that James Vigil, Jr. enters an. [
appearance as counsel for Florida Power & Light company-in the t above-captioned proceeding. Name James-Vigil, Jr.
' Address: Newman & Holtsinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000: < Washington, D.C. 20036 r Telephones (202) 955-6600 Admissions: United Stat'es Court of' Appeals'for ' f the District of Columbia Circuit Name . of Par' 4: Florida Power & Light Company' Post Office Box 14000- ' Juno reach,. Florida 33408,- r _J 'mes. Vigil,/ ewman & Holtzinger,,P.C. 1615:L Street,.N.W.
. Suite 1000 t, Washington,fD.CL 20036.--
Date l November. _9, .19 9 0 -
.c ; ,
g , i . F 41 ~_
~-
y . x ,
- y' I
l f 00Chl100 l
- ' 05NRC.
Unirso statss;or.Ansarca i wucLaan; asovraront conurssz$ N(N 13 /A10145 i 1 10fF ICL Of-$lCRf IARY ( DOCKCIING & SliMCI o.
.)-
BRANCH-In the-Matter of -)- .1 . . .
) Docket Nos'. 50-250 -i FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY- ) 251
. , .)1 j
-(Turkey Point Plant,_ ') J Units-3 and 4): 4
' - ); '
-)n' '
r
)s ,,
s canTiricmTE or samvicz i ILherebycertifythatfcopAes$ofh" Licensee'sAnswerin i Opposition to: Request for:Hearingiand Petitionifor: Leave to-
. Intervene" in the aboveicaptioned! proceeding,.together.with four
" Notice (s ) of Appearance . of Counsel, f'a ware, served. on the . i
.following by!depositEin'the. United States (mail,'.firsticlass, .
properly: stamped and! addressed,h engtheidate-shown below..- ' i U.S. Nuclear?RegulatoryLCommission. . Atomic SafetyfandL. Licensing Board Panel Washington,:D.C. -'20555,u .. h U'S'. Nuclear; Regulatory fommission'. 'I j
' Atomic Safetydand LicensJngl Appeal Panel Mail' Stop EWW-529 : ,
L
+--
Washington,..D.C. ; 205551 , 'i
, 3, , a r
- Office'.ofEthe' -
Secret'ry a ., .- - i
- b. U.S. Nuclear! Regulatory Commission- i 1
Washington,.;D.C.;
+.
20555 '. p: ' , !o , u Attention:z: Chief,,Docketingland ServiceSSection l
-(Original 4plusSt,wofcopies) .
.Ly Thomas J.ESaporito MJru e . . f 4
J Executive. Director . ~ 9, Nuclear EnergyiAccountabilitplProject?
\ Post Office' Box 129' 4
JupiterFFlorida? 33468.0129 j ! [, , Janice<E._ Moore [,Esq'.E. ' H. >
, Patricia l A. ::Jehle,, Esq'; . .f, ,
OfficeiofstheiGeneral-5 Counsel - d U.S.iN,uclear Regulatory!Commiss' ion? sI 1 LWashington,7D.C. :20555o '
?
m , s - v; d
'N
' :7 il y..
, z,, , o, ,
[. ,. . , ,, c s . ~
' y
.-5 ,
- j e i '
'd
'm .
a s' y Q
' ,b * ?
s
)Q
, , ._ - i
, , g _: y.t - t - > - - - - --
~: ~
m o- .4
.st y
;f '.
- e
-' il g.
l 2 --
.- l 3
7 Steven Carr,eEsq. Senior Attorney .. Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe' Boulevard 't 1 Room 3712-Juno Beach, Florida 33408- , i
. . , .i s ,
Dated.this 9th day of November-1990 l
.j a
'{ .
.i
' t
_m_ f m VigI .Jr.
- N ani oltzinger, P.C.; '
15?L Street,.'N.W.i i
.Suiter1000: . ' ' . . 1
-Washington,.D.C.- ..20036- _
.n 3
, p. .j
' i 4 , ,
i e d ? 4 r i
']
'la
?
- 3.
I
, ,$ i 'd ;
'l
, n ,
N t .) 1-- , 4
?
,' ,o i E '
)
j ' h'
- I'g l:
E
)
i 1 1
'b y
+
'i'
't (1 g '
, , t ij i 1,. c1 9..
0 N
., s l'
,,M. ..
.I ; : i. ' , f. -',. b,'f k u I i !
em
, ( ,
3 ;)
. s 4
/
i
. ):,
.'I.'
Ill 3
., f, ' -
- :(
f, :lb
.f /- ". ( ' f ' ..k' l 'l 6
i , ,
, d, '
s f!(
- 1
> !) , .
1
? '
I
. , , a ~ -
i
- 4 A' ^
,_ ,. l' ' ;' g
,p'a
- g ,.! -
*. ! ..g',t 4
+s, g i i ! ,~-
,r., D1
)
s > gy p)
.b ii
' >H:' ;! >:.G s - -;
1 :
* ;1; :t.
s
,+.
..,'<< , . , ? ,o a ; c' i :5 3
'. .I } [
'. , +. a . ,
~5 *I'
'(
4 . . pl g F,'?'
.!g i'.h 9 ' f '[ ..~c :g;p; . I f..
g g m i
, h; <
fi. < . N ,
.j. h. 'f,% r -s- ,
4 y-U et c i p + d ,X
~ i t ;.
. 7., .
~;;1 !}}