ML20062H689
| ML20062H689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1990 |
| From: | Patricia Jehle NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062H666 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-6, NUDOCS 9012050232 | |
| Download: ML20062H689 (50) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. .. . . ._ _ _ . _ _-_ _ ___ _ __ _ - _ . - _ _ - - i DO(;f.E100 .! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA uw.c , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION < BEFORE THE COMMISSION ~ ,9 . crfit.E or nct,riApv nhi:M 1lHik .*, *
. In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250-OLAuo,Q HVl(:('
'3 50251 OLA
[ FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT ) ' Emergency Power Systein COMPANY Enhancement Project (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 ) and 4) )
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO-REQUEST FOR HEARING' AND PETITION FOR
. LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF NEAP- AND THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR; i
)
Patricia Jehle - Counsel for NRC Staff ; 11 , E ' 't November 14, 1990- D's ncmr;D -oaIoIuAL Certified 1]y D$0.7, pp[ % - I
/. =
9012050232 901128 PDR ADOCK 05000250 G PDR *
, , , . li. :i lL' 2' .
i . . . . . _ . .
I ;. i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ' i NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION l 1
% BEFORE THE COMMISSION -
i
'C' In the Matter of ) : Docket Nos. -50 250 OLA !
; ) .- 50 251-OLA
') ..
-U FLORIDA POWER AND. LIGHT' ) Emergency Power System COMPANY- -) Enhancement Project
) ;
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 .
-)' :
.~
, and4) ,)
). ,
i w NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR HEdRING ND:' PETITION FOR l LEAVE TO' INTERVENE OF NEAP AND, THOMAS'J.' SAPORITO, JR.. i f i I 1 a r 1 -f. 3 \
-f t
t v ,
, i- l
- i- ,
i i , I
- ;g,.._ !$ , :, y v, a .: .
If . Patricia Jehle . . .. W[g, g > i Counsel for NRC Staff - Sy,1Qh , , v;h o ll !?Y , i h A lI!l;$a)p .November 14, 1990-- D;/
, lA,; , . '
)f IfIC i .I I ' g i
'j }
l h' {s ...
' +
lPj.t[ft w; -
, .I 4 3 3 .- '
lfly (jbj! '
, \,
D; ' .g![!,[ ' " . _ , j f , '.J'. ,,, ,_. , . _
TABLE OF CONTENTS : EA&R TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -
..-........................ il .
l I. INTRODU CTION g. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. j
'. II.
. 1 BACKGROUND- .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
.l
.j III. DISCU SSION s . . . -.t. '
3 1
. .. -. 1 A. Standards for Intervention. -
. . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . 3 1
B. Petitioners Have Failed to Allege Facts R Sufficient to Support Standing'_ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '8~ q a C. Petitioners Have Satisfied the Aspect - g
~ Requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2) J of the Commission's Regulations: . .. . .-. . . . . . . . . . . ..~ 10 c j q, -
s i D.' - ' Standards Governing Admissibility sof Contentions , ................... ........ . 12' j ( . , , , -- . 1; l E. -General Application of Standards Governing Admissibility of Contentions . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 17-L i L F. : Responses lto Proposed Contentions- . .- . . . . .. . .. .. .. 19 I IV.~ . CONCLUSION) = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . - , . . 35
]
. 1 a ';
j 1
, a 1 a
o
~ ' e '- 'I i!
t
. : *\ -
- ' f :
,yis,
-p i 4
t4 -
,) !
j ._ 6 I
a j IABLE OF AUTHORITIES P. age COURT CASES: ,
.., Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp, __
397 U.S. 150 (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 BP1 v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. -1974) . . . . . . . . . . , , . . -. . . . . 15,16 Connecticut Bankers Assh v. Board of Governers,. ; 627 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 1. . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,17 Dellums v, NRC, 863 F.2d 968 (D.C.' Cir.1988) -. . . . , ,. . , . . . . . . . 6 Easton Utilities Commission, v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847_(D.C. Cir.1970) . .-. .. .:. . , .:... , . ..... . . . ... . . . . . 16 - 1 Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Co'mmission,
. 432 U.S; 333 (1977) . . . .. . . . . _. :. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, .10 Independent Bank:ers Assh of Georgia v. Board .
- of Govemors, 516 F.2d;1206 (D,C. Cir.1975) '. . . . . . . . . . -, . . . . .
f 16 - 1 Sierra Club v. Hassell, 636 F.2d 1095. (9t h Cir. 1981) . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . c 20 ? L Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) . . ..; . . :. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 4, 6- l r Stephens v. Adams, 469 F. Supp.1222 ( D. Wis 19 79) . . . . . . , , . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .7...,,............. 20-Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power, Corp. lv. NRC, 435 U.S.' 519 ( 1978) , . . . . . . . . . . : . . . ' . : . ' . . . . . . .. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) :. . :. :. . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6~
~
j ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:' !
~
C" - Allied. General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receivn,; nnd' Storage Station), ALAB1328,
- 3 NRC 420 (1976) .L . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - ' 9 -
if s > -i + . .e Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Powe'r Station),u LBP 85-24,22 NRC 97, aff'd'on s ..,. : ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461 (1985))lother - . .x . :. : . : . . . . . .grounds,
. . . . . . . . - . . m . - . . . - 5, 6 !
s ! d.-
, ,' [ ,,
j ;-. . j
m.. . _ _ _ . _ _ _. . . _ _ _ _
- l l
. ill . l Eau -j L .- !
' ADMINISTRATIVE ' DECISIONS (CONTINUEDh {
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power 7 Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85 20,L 21 NRC 1732 (1985), rev'd and remanded on ' other grounds, CLI.86 8,;23.NRC 241 (1986) . .. . -. . . . .. , . . . . . . . . 15,16 I it Commonwealth Edison Co., et al. (Carroll County Site), ALAB 601,;12 NRC 18 (1980) . . . . . .' .1. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . .. 13 Consumers Power CoJ(Big Rock Point Nu' clear Plant), _ s
'ALAB 636, 13 NRC 312 '(1981) . . . . . . . . . . . .s. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21
. Duke. Power Co. (Amendment to. Materials. License
-SNM.1773.. Transportation of Spent Fuel from '
c Oconee' Nuclear Station for. Storage at'McGuire Nuclear Station) . ALAB.528, 9 NRC 146 (1979) . . ;.' . .. ... .. .._, . . . . . 7 .
. Duke Power Co. '(Catawba Nuclear Generating. ,
LStation,4 Units 'l and <2), ALAB 687,' 16 NRC 460 (1982), vacated on other grounds,l
' CLI.83 19, .17 NRC 1041; (1983) . . . . , . :. . . . . . . . . . . ., ' . . . . . . . ' . .
14,-- 15, 21,23 , Florida Power and' Light Co. (St.'LucieNublcar . i l Plant, Units l and 2),'Cll.89 21,~ _
.,...;..... 5, 6, 7 i 130 NRC 325 (1989)
. J, L
- Florida Power and Light. Co.'(Turkey Point Plant,' Units 3 and 4),;
- Memorandum and _ Order, (unpublished),'(April;24,:1990) . . . . . .r. .,. 9' ..'
Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey; Point Nuclear; L Generating Station, Units '3 andL4),LLBP_-8114,-- L n+ 13 NRC 677. '(1981)) . . . . . .;. . . . . c. , . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . .. l. . :. . . . . . . . 20,: 21 H - j Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, ,. , 4 fUnits ILand'2),1ALAB-183,;7 AEC 222 (1974)n.. . - . .. . . ... . .
._.;. , . 5:
. Houston? Light and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear'
? Generating Station, Unit'1)sALAB-590,;.
- 11 NRC 542 (1980) . . . . ' . . - . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . ,. . . . . . . . :. . .-
13,' 14,115_ - . gth w _
]
.i
. s s
i P = U- ~p l
'fr . . ;f _ s Q ' \:
** ., , - , + ~ . , ~ , ~ - +
~
.s t
'f l -.
- iv- -
EAgfe . c .. 1
- ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (CONTINUEDh s Houston Light and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclent Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB 535,
)4 9 N R C 377 (1979) . . :. . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 6, 7 Afississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Guli Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, !
6 AEC 4 23 l ( 1973) . . . , . . . . . . , c. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-Aferropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear - l Station, Unit 1), CLI 83 25,18 NRC 327_ (1981)
~
4 i
.J
- Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear- 4 Generating Plant, . Units 1 'and 2), ALAB.455,;
7 NRC _41 (1978) . _ , . . . . _ . - : . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . .' .- . . . . . - - 21 Nualear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sbeifield," Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste 1 t
. Disposal Site),. ALAB-473, 7 lNRC 737 (1978)1. . .. . . . . . , ..: .. . . . . . 6L 4 Philadelphia Electric Co.;(Limerick Generating =
Station. Units l'and 2), ALAB 819,- 22 N RC 681 (1985) ; = . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . 15 Philadelphia Electric Co.'(PeacirBottomIAtomic. ' Power Station,- Units 2;and 3), ALAB 216,- ' 8 AEC 13 ' (1976) . . . . . . . . ' . . . :. . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . , , . . . : . . . ; . . . 14 -
. Portland General Electric C6. (Pebble Springs ,
Nuclear Plant,. Units 1- and 2), CLI 76:27, - 1
- 4 NRC 610 (1976) ; . . . . i ; .w . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . :. . 4,5,6 1
1 x , Public Service Co. ofIndiana, Inc. (Marble ' ; , Hill Nuclear Generating Station,iUnits I? 1
' and 2), , ALAB-316, ~3 NRC 167 (1976) :. m . . .~ . . . . . . . , . . '. , .L.:. . . c 131
;Puget Sound Power and ' Light Co et al ., .
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project,c.. ' Units 1- and 2), ALAB-700,1 ,, y y., '
.16 NRC 1329. (1982) j.7. _ . '. . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . /. . . . . c. . 6 ' 1
- South Carolina Electric an'd Gds Co.; et al.'(Virgili 1
C. Summer Nuclear. Station, Unit 1),1 . ALAB 642,13 NRC 881L(1981) H. '. ', .= . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . .:.= . - . . 7 < . 4 4i.
}
t'
.\ s,
_,]% g f .l ' - 4
'/ I ,i_ , ( ,, ,
I
\
-y. .
l 3 M I l ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (CONTINUEDk Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 413,1
.,. 5 NR C 1418 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . .. - 7 '
l Transnuclear, Inc. (Ten Applications for Low Enriched Uranium Exports to-EURATOM Member Nations), . , CLI 77 24, 6_ NRC 525 (1977) . . . . . .. . . . . . . -, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, .9 ' j . Virginia Electric and Power Co. '(Nohh > Anna l
. Nuclear Power StationiUnits 1 and'2),
f ALAB 536, 9 NRC . 402_ (1979) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . _9 - Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North; l Anna Nuclear Power Station, Unitsil -and 2),- l ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 5, 8 ' l: STATUTES: Administrative Procedures Act,-- 5 U.S.C. 5 551 et seq. . = , . . . . . . , : . . . . .' . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - I L Atomic Energy of-1954, i 189(a),.
. 4 2 U.S. C. I 223 9 . , . _ . . . . . ; . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . ~ . . .
. 16 -
1 j National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,.
= 42 U.S.C. i '4332(2)(C) . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . '. - . . . . . . . . . . . < 20, 21 ' .
' REGULATIONS: . , ,
10 C.F.R. 6'2.714 l . . . . ................s...,,.................s2,3,. j m
+ 4
.14,' 15 ' -
<10 C.F.R.; 6:2.714(a)(1)
......c......:......-,...:.......:......,.31 i
- 10 C.F.R. 6:2.714'(a)(2) = , '
1 passim -
.,; j a
.A, .,
f
;ii . h ,' I J
~
ao
') ,
f
. vi .
i ~ PASA REGULATIONS (CONTINUEDh ' 10 C.F.R. I 2.714('o) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . parsim ; 10 C.F.R.' f 2.714(b)(1) _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12
.i 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b)(2) . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 2, 12, . 13, 14 ,
t 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b)(2)(iii). .._-.... ...,...................-.l21,23- Y t 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(d)(1)' ....-..-..................,........;4 _
.r 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(d)(2)J .....:....-.. . . . . . .. . . . . . - . . ...:.;.... 12 f
.10 C.F.R. 5 2.732 ............................._,....,.4: t 10 C.F.R. 6 ' 50.58(b)(6) . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 18 .
10 C.F.R. i 51.14(a) ; . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . ' . . 23, 25.
~
h
- 10 C.F.R? 6 51.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . . - . t. . t .;. . 11; 20, 23
. g
,. . . i 10 C.F.R. 6 51.21 .........,.-......,....................',y11,23;
-. . i 3
10 C.F.R'. I 51.22 ' .....-.....,.... ..................;..'...J11,23' c 10 C.F.R.? 6 SL22(b) .................. 1
. . ....'.........r...;22,~23: ,
10 C.F.R. i 51.22(c)(9) 23 - U m - .. 1 ? . 10 C.F.R[f 51.22(c)(10)- . .......,............;..........23 t ;
.i
~10 C.F.R.' 6 51.25: . . . . . . . : . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . ;. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -l 23 l oi 4
j ,' \ c Ii
- j. '
- '(-
' il , ' .>
p-. ' . . E. , ik g.
,= c t
, , .it 4
, y L
, ' t i
_r,- , t j 7;; ..
.s>. ,
.)
L 4 s i m W: , ,
,. l.
e s + ,
'.' I y
-(
I 3 4
, , , ,,,(,_ + *f-
_' N 3.' i vil-5
'. - MISCET I ANEOUS:
i
" Florida Power and Light Co., Consideration of Issuance - s' of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Proposed No Significant ;
Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing," 55 Fed. Reg. 39331 (September.26,1990)- . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . passim-
" Proposed Staff Actions to' Improve and Maintain .
Diesel Generator Reliability,"' Generic letter.8415 (July 2,.1984). -. ........:....-.......... 31
" Rules' of Practice for Domestic Licensing Procee' dings -
Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process,"
, j .
54 Fed.iReg. 33168 (August 11, 1989) -. b . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 passim
=;
i h
- ! 'j o
)
- y. _<
E b r b
=t k
l4'. .' r - f
'M.,
a
'q *\ 1
~{
.1
..i i
.i I
\ i i
.t -g-a3 . o
.3
[ I', , 4
- 1
# -nIi- w -*
- 9
3 li{ ? -- b UNITED STATEF OF AMERICA' ., NUCLEAR REGULNIORY COMMISSION. s. BEFORE THE COMMISSION l oe . In the Matter of )-
): .
FLORIDA: POWER AND LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA - COMPANY ) , 50 251-OLA
')- ,
(Turkey Point Plant,- Units 3 and 4: ) Emergency Power System- , Station)- ) Enhancement Project'
'NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR HEARING 'AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF NEAP AND THOMAS 1 SAPORITOcJR.
I.. INTRODUCTIQN I On October 25,1990,.the Nuclear Energy Accountab'lity i Project'(NEAP) i and ' Thomas 'J. Saporito, Jr.l(hereinafter- Petitioners)" filed their " Request for/ 1
. Hearing and: Petition- for Leave tolintervene"? (hereinafter . Petition)}in; the-above captioned proceeding. The Petition is in response toia' notice: published in- '
, N ,
E. T. . the Federal. Register on September 26,'1990, announcing-the proposed 7 . y , .aniendments to the Technical Specifications of Turkdyl Point Plant, Units 3 and 4.-
- " Florida Power and Light Co.; Consideration ofIssuance of Amendments to Facility 1 1
Operating _ Licenses and. Proposed L nom Significant ' Hazards HConsiderationi
.a . .
Determination 1 - and Opportunity . for ; Hearing" i55{ l Fed? '. Reg.: 39331,
.(September 26,L1990). Florida Power and Light Company;(hereinafter LJcensee); j
^
Jfiled " Licensee's' Answer in Opposition to' Request'for Hearing (and Petition for:
.g '
Leave toLIntervene" on November 9,1990.' For the reasokset forth below, the;
, . petition 1to Eintervene should be: deniedc because c PNitioners Lhave- failed to ,
,m . ,
4 g,j - 1 5 1
.}., '
fi; i
- 1 1, ' 'lC 8
3 ,
,4 8 3 t '
! , i wn .
~
m ,
- .L.. =-:- = = = - -"
q \\
.l t' , ,
. 2'- (lj demonstrate that they' meet the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. i ? 714 of the Commission's regulations and they. have failed to set.forth a litigable contention 'I pursuant to l'2.714(b)(2).;
II.. BACKGROUND On July 2,;1990,1Licenieef filed an" application to amend the Technical 1
~
Specifications for? the Turkey- PointiPlant,: Units (3 and 4 to ; implement the r j modification of the electrical power systems for' bo'th units. I.etter of W.H. Bohlke 1 to> NRC Staff dated" July 2,1990, transmitting Technice' Specification submittal.- (Hereinafter Amendment-Application)! LOn SeptemNr 26,1990, the Commission = h
. published'a Notice of Proposed Issua'nce of:the Tdtkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4- j Licenses in_ the Federal Register.- 55 Fed. Reg. 39331 (September 26,1990). The-proposed amendments would modify the plantk'l Tech'nical Specifications to:make-1 them; applicable to' the improved fdesign. JId. lIn. conjunction with= the proposed-- 4 Lamendments, two emergency diesel generators and other euctrical equipment would be added.to:the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. tid. t T' he, proposed changes to'the Turkey!Poirit Plant; Technical: Specifications have been grouped into five categories.uld.lThe first category, Emergency Power j
~
- System. enhancement changes, inhludes Non technical changes'to design parameter 1
' values and requirements resulting from the plant reconfiguration. LThese changes g
\
.. 40 not result in either relaxeti'or:moreirestrictive requirements.L Id.; The second category lincludesL administrative changes to !the Technical Specifications; for -
.exampl e,7 editorial , changes,1 reformattingM and ichanges ; for = consistency. Id. l a
4 t i
, -] ; j, l ~, , , 'f
, t ,ic
,i 6
a I 3 1 Category 3 changes introduce technical requirements that are more restrictive than ,:e the present technisal specifications. These changes' include changes to frequency. S*H of surveillances to verify operability and changes in surveillance requirements. Id. The fourth group contains' changes to the Tech'nical. Specifications which result in f reduced requirements, but which do not significantly reduce safety. Id. The final category includes requirements that: are to- be- deleted from. the" Technical: q Specifications. Id. The majority.of the: deletions are due to design changes associated with the Emergency Power System upgrade while a few are proposed to - complete the conversion to the Standard Technical Specifications. -Id. ;1i On October 25,1990; Mr. Saporito filed a timely request for a hearing and 1
- petition for leave to . intervene on his behalf as an individual and on behalf of- t NEAP as an organization. , Petition at 12.
.II r
. IIL DISCUSSION 1 A. Standards for Intervention -
4 - A person seeking to interw.ic in a Commission proceeding'must satisfy the requirementsL of-101 C.F.R. ,6 2.714 sf the. Commission's regulations. The-u w regulations per.mit any person whose interest may biaffected by a proceeding to ' ^ ' 1 . . . i file a petition for leave ~ to intervene.110 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1).' . The petition must)
. state with.-particularity theLinterest;of:the petitioner in.the proceeding, how the im i l[]
y' results.of the proceeding willLaffect thdinterest and why the petitioner should be s . permitted to-intervene. 10 C.F.R. 5-2.7.14(a)(2).1 The petition must also identify ; i r .. > 99 g l the specific aspect or aspects of the; subject matter of the proceeding with respect! g , y , 3 j,y94 i o Q)" , i m
- l; Y l ~ . i
}h i .,'c..
C. . 4L . Ii? 4 , P, ? _ .-. .. ; , . , - , - ~ . _ . , _ - - - ,,' - - . 4
\. ri
] ,
. 4 '. ,
j to which the petitioner wishes to intervene, ld. The b'urden of meeting these-L requirements is on the petitioner.10 C.F.R 2.732; Metropolitan Edhon Co. (Three '( Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)s CU 83-25,118 NRC. 327,- 331 (1983). < A petitioner must also address the criteria of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(d)(1). ' These criteria-
'are: -(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to, i the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the. proceeding; and'(3) the possible effect of'any order which j may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's11nterest. ; The petitioner alsoL must set forth at ler.st one valid contention 3and:lts s$pporting bases, although this ,
- requirement need not be met when the petition is' first filed. See 10 C.F.R.-
s i 2.714(b)(1). A In; order to demonstrate standing'in a p oceeding,' a petitioner must. allege 1 an injury in fact to-his or her interests. ;The alleged; interests must be within the f
,, zone of interests-to bel protected by the relevant? statute. Sierra Club v. Morton,-
.]
405 U.S. 727, 732-36 (1972); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v.
/ , 3 i
' Camp,' 397 U.S.' 150,~ 152 54. (1970).L IIn dete'rmining(whether a petitioner has
- , J sufficient interest to intervene in a Commission Mroceeding, judicial concepts of -
%g
., standing apply. Portland General Electric Cec /Pebbidprings, Nuclear Plant, Units' l 1 and 2), CU-76 27,4 NRC 610 (1976). These. judicial concepts of standing apply - W "+ Lbo'th! topindividuals1and Lto organizations (seekingLintervention in: Commission ,n p, 1
' proceedings. Id. , + , j .
q , i J
. 3 <To establish personal standing, an individual petitioner must show that the- '
action sought in the proceeding;will'eause an' injury /in fact, and that the injury is-1 uy 4 ( m w . : (f , M b ?O 4: ,
. t pj , , 1 ,. y ; l' . . , _ _-m . . - * ?' b R- - - --- - "
a e5.- l L within the zone of interest protected by the relevant statute.. Data Processing, ~ 397 - l U.S. at 152-154. In a Commission proceeding, a petitioner must allege an injury. L, that is within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act.of 1954, as amended or the National Em'ironmental Policyy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).' Pebble Springs, CLI 76 27, 4:NRC-at.61314. Allegations.of injury to the health s and safety of a petitioner residing near a reactor may be' sufficient to establish-i standing to intervene. See Virginia Electric and Power (North Anna' Nuclear Power - Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 522,;9;NRC 54, 56 (1979); Gulf States Utilities i u Company (River, Bend Station,' Units = 1 and 2),1 ALAB .183, 7' AEC 222, 223 24 - i(1974).' Residence, however, does not automatically confer standing.- For example, . l 1 Lresidence within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power-plant is not always sufficient
.to' establish sta'nding. - Boston ! Edison Co. (Pilgrim LNuclear '. Power . Station), .
- LBP 85 24, 22 NRC . 97, 98 99,; affd : ~on: ?other grounds ALAB-816, :
22 NRC~461.(1981). The nature lof the proceedings is considered by a Licensing? ; 3 { '
< Board in determining whether a petitioner has demonstrated standing to' intervene; L .
- t
.a different standard is used in proceedings which involve construction penuits and !
' operating licensesLthan:in license amendment proceedings.' l1d. The Commission x
' y'j addressed this issue'and concluded:.-
q
. m
' ,' : in the past, we have held that living within.a specific' distance from~ the =
*> , plant is enough'toj confar : standing onian; individual or group inE proceedings for construbtion permits, operating; licenses or significant; ,
- amendments . . - However, those cases: involved the construction or: 1 V ,49 '
Loperation of the reactor itself,:with cle'ar impilcations for the offsitet o 1 L , m cenvironment, or maior alterations to'.the facility.with a clear potential , H E . 1% . for offsite consequences.1 LAbsent situations involving such . obvious R , .m M ~ potential? for offsite consequences,i a; petitioner! must alle'gel some -
,j) 4 specific "injuryfin facth that will result from the action taken ', .-.
., . .~ .
'M['
,i
, 4
[jffi( -
'P!J
.a
."[( lhi,
~#s' of-jd[! my 1 '., ',
Qyin: , d!$ $ ', :4._ c._ _ ..
'. - - - - >- " .l '_
~ 6, I
1 L Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Pfant, Units 1 and 2), CU-89 21,30 NRC 325,329 (1989), . 1 1 An organization.may also seek' standing' to intervene. An organization may. l establish- standinglin two ways: ' in its own right;or by representing one 'of its . members who has individual standing. In' order for an organization to have sta$ ding in its- own: hight it 'must show an injury to 'its organizational interest.1 : Transnuclear, Inc. (Ten Applications ' for; I.ow-Enriched Uranium. Exports toi t EURATOM Member Nations), CU-77 24,- 6' NRC 525,1531 (1977); Pebble Springs,- ; CU 76-27,4.NRC at 61314. 'An organization must demonstrate that it will suffer-
^
an' injury which is not a generalized harm and is not shared .in' general by a large y class of citizens. Transnuclear, Inc. CU 77 24,6,NRC at 531k The assertion by
.an organization that it has ~an'. interest int a-proceeding orL in. nuclear issues in -
general is _not: sufficient lto establish standing;Lanf aliegation thattan injury to a
- 7 specific l interest has or will result from.the proceedmg is required.- Puget Sound' Power.and Light Co., et'al. (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2),
- ALAB 700,'16!NRC_1329,11333 (1982); Nuclear Engineering Co."Inc. (Sheffield,
; Illinois, low I.evel Radioactive. Waste Disposal Site) ALABN73; 7_'NRC 737, 741:
)
(1978);'see also Sierra Club,405.U.S. at 739-40. An organizational' petitioner must allegeL anLIEjuryyinEfact that is withIn tlie prot $cied Jzone of interest and-g demonstrate a'real stake.in the outcome of.the proceeding.LDellums v. NRC,863 a
~
F.2d 968, .971'(D.C. Cir.1988); Pebble Springs, CU 76-27,'4 NRC at 613-14.' 4 j
) .' ' .
LAn organization may also obtain_ representithnall standing through one of m
^
-l
) its members. IWarth v.' Seldin, 422 U.S: 490,5511L(1975);[ Houston Lighting and l s 1 i ,
$l m .af , . _ . -. ._
.M :. . D! . . -- - - -~ -'
ll i-L - - 7; - Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB 535,9 NRC. : 1 377, 389 94 (1979). An organization may ~ gain standing as a representative of its l 1 I member (1) if a member would otherwise have standing to sue in his or her ov;n right; (2) the interests the organization seeks to protect are ger mane to its purpose; i and (3) where the relief requested does not require the padicipation of the : e individual member in; the litigation. . Hunt v. Washington Apple ' Advertising . l . L ' n Commission,432 U.S. 333,343 (1977). L i An organization seeking to represent its members must have memt,ers who
. ;i possess; indicia 'of membership. Hunt, 432 U.S.' at 343.' LThe members must; '
exercise some measure 'of power or control'over the organization.1 Id. at 344. If . ,i 4 an organization seeks to establish organizational standing 'througNits' membersithe: organization must provide the name and address of at least'one;of its members who has individual standing. : Allem Creek,i AI.AB-535, 9 NRC'at L393-94.- The- - member also must authorize the organization 1to represent his 1
~or~ her interests; j n
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,' Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413,< - l m , m, ;
, 5 NRC 1418,1421'(1977)., An affidavit sho61d'be submitted ~which indicates this '
authorization. - See South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., et bl.QVirgil Summer "
'l Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB 642,13 NRC 881,884 (1981).jAn organization: :
9 may alsofobtain representational standing when its petition is signed by an officer ;-
"l who has personal standing. ; Duke Power Co.\(Amsndment?to Materials License'
" t s . -
' SNM 1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel from'Oconee Nuclear Station:for Storage q
@ ?
at =McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB 528,u9 NRC ~146,' 151 (1979). : ,m '
. i i }) .'
ls *
, 4 1 tr : , _
n i.,;C - ; f- '
't
~
- h f {[ '
- 1' ,
- \i
~
, li %' )O q j. 4 : 'f'
, +
1 , _ ; _.2 2. _ , __ . _a.u__ un.
? g i
. . ' 8 '. .
~ -t i
~ B.L Petitioners Have~- Failed W Allege Facts - Sufficient to Support Standing -
- Petitioner NEAP ' attempts to est0blish staeding as an organization in its own !
. right and to derive representational standing from Mr Saporito,- its. Executive
]
Director. NEAP does not seek standing through any ofits members. Mr. Saporito - ! i is seeking individual standin'g' based on his employment and residence. Neither , j i NEAP nor Mr. Saporito, however, has 'provided sufficient facts to decide the issue , of standing ih their' favor.. [
'Mr. Saporito'has not presented facts that support his claims of individual- ,
standing. As discussed in Section.A,'an individual has standing to intervene in a - .) 4 Commission proceedingiwhere Lh'e or~ she has sufficient contacts within; the q
- geographical zo.se 'of interest of a nucles: power plant. North Anna, ALAB 522, }
9 NRC~at 54. Mr.- Saporito has nottrovided sufficient information regarding his .[ i residence or 'his employment;L he n.erely. claims to live and work.in and about ;
' the City of Miami. Petition at 2. .Mr. Saporito his failed to provide his address I in ' Miami. Furthermore, Mr. Saporito alleges he is self employed with the Airflow.
j
~
u Service Corporation.'- ?Mr. Saporito has failed to provide the address of the Airflow - ., H . 1 ( - Se:vice Corporation, and_the amount:of time' his work for the Corporation requires (
' hlm to be in the vicinity of the Turkey Point Plantc
,.1.
l
.Mr. Saporito has not established individual standing through his activities as
}f
' Executive i Directore of NEAP.e iThe? Petition . contains no description - of [i L. . ~
L'. Mr. Saporito's duties as Executive Director.! Furthermore, NEAPS principal place . ;I L.C 6f business.is in Jupiter, Florida:which is not.in the vicinity-of the Turkey Point;
- , Plant and NEAP has not provided sufficient facts to determine if its auxiliary place- j u
L
, , . . . _ -. . - - _ . . . . - _ _ _ _ . -- - - - - - -R -- 3 G ;- -
l
.'9.. I L
u, of business is within the geographical zone of interest of the Turkey' Point Plant. l c In addition; the Petition does not provide facts to support a determination that Mr. ! i Saporito's activities at NEAP's' auxiliary place of business would confer individual i
~
~s tanding- upon him. Mr. Saporito,.therefore, has failed to establish, personal ' '
i standing. Since Mr. Saporito lacks the requisite personal' standing, the organ!zation-cannot derive organizational standing from'Mr. Saporito.; " NEAP has not established standing = as an' organization. An' organization
~
may obtain standing either:in its own right or as a representative of.a member
- who has personal standing. In order to obt'ain standing in'its own right,' an 'l organization must show an injiiry to its organizational interest. ' Transnuclear, Inc. ' .
CLI 77 24,6 NRC at 531. The injury suffered by an organization must not be a
' generalized harm or shared b,' a:large class of citizens? Id.LI;In~its Petition, NEAP failed to identify any specific interests whichtwould be affected by the? proposed amendments. NEAP's interest appears to oc a general interest in the environment 3
and the impacts of technology' on;the. environment,(which,1even'iflrelated to ! nuclear power, is not sufficienti to' conferistanding.' NEAh hasJ failed to ]
' demonstrate a specific injury to its> organizational ~in'terest,"thus,"it does not-have standing .to intervene as' an organizati6n in thIs proceeding;;
i ( 1 While not controlling, we would note that in a proceeding involving'the same j 1 ;,. - parties, the Licensing-Board held that NEAR did not'have standing as an organization: since : it 3was ~:merelpi claiming c ag generalized ? grievance.L LFloridu Power and Light Co. (Turk'eyL Point: Plant,T Units : 3( Jand9 4)l !
; Memorandum and, Order,:(unpublished) (Apri 2.4,1990)~at L6l This ' case is -
4 now:on appeal, t T
, 's 3
'1 f' y
/ I g
,4 t
' 'I e e Zb -ev+ - - - ***-e
-a '
i
.c r
)
J
. ' 10 - - ;,
., sNEAP has not demonstrated that it is located within,close proximity.to the {
Turkey Point Plant.' NEAP's principal place of business is Jupiter, Florida, which is approximately 83 miles from the Turkey Point Plant.iPetitioners assert that
. NEAP has.an auxiliary place of business in Miami, Florida ~where mL" majority" of . j t
NEIP's business is conducted.- Petition at 2. However, Petitioners do not providei 4 1 a a business address for NEAP, nor do they identify what interest NEAP might have, . 1 i or' how. such interestLmight be affected by the Lproposed' amendments. NEAP, therefore,Lhas not demonstrated standing to intervene as arforganization l'n its own . d
' right.) i Liu summary, Mr. Saporito,h'as'not provided sufficient information?i n/his l Lpetitio'n toLsupport1his ' individual stan' ding ;to . intervene in this: proceeding., In I\
j additic..i, NEAP has not provided enough infbrmation to support its standing either y as!an^ organization in its own right, or through.Mr.;Saporito as an ' officer ot the: 1
} ,
Torganization with the requisite personal standing. Therefore,$tids petition for leave i 1 S ,to intervene should-be denied.. , C.
- Petitioners ' Have Satisfied Thet : Aspect Requirementf of 4101 C.F.R.;
' A 2.714(aV2Fof the Commission's Regulations" ;
; 3 ;;
y . ,
; In . addition to ' demonstrating' standing 'toiintervene,;a ' petitioner l must :also .
}
, 'm sidentifyjthe; aspect or aspects f the: subject matter of:the proceeding lasito which, lw y ? petition'er. wishes to intervene 910 C.F.R.'l 2.714(s)(2),j While' the Petitioners here
;. ,(,
T # have failed /th explicitly setfforth the aspect;or aspects:on:which th'ey'.wish 'tol . 7 4 m. . .. sintervene,ithetStaff has examined the proposed; contentions forithis purpose'and ~ 1 jhasfdEtenninhd they have met the aspect requirement.'- [
. , +.. , , , .c
*?
o " f -{h
]
51 es , A '
. . ~ ; .
~ .
4: , , , + - -
-r,-
- ~+
~
r , ; h p E I' l ,, ' Petitioners have identilled aspects in' Proposed Contentions 3, 4,5,6 and 7 , of the Petition which satisfy the requirements'of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(2). Proposed Contention 3 alleges that the lack of technical specifications concermng the intertie : :
.f between the Turkey Pointt Units 3 and 4' may adversely affect plant operation.- j.-
Petition at 5. In Proposed Contention 4, Petitioners express a generalized concern ; that- thel present testing procedures for redundantiemergency diesel generators > taker out of service for preplanned maintenance or testing should-be retained in j 4 the Technical Specifications. They als'o allege that this proposed change may cause - a serious accident. Petitioners'; Pro ~ posed Contention 5 alleges that the operability of the crankingL diesel generators _will! be Jcompromised by the proposed j J
- amendments thereby reducing; margins.of safety.'at the plant.1In their Proposed . !
Contentions 6 and - 7,; Petitioners contendi that the (proposed : changes (to: the l n verification requirements for. 'the fuel Ltransfer' pumps and~ the : surveillance procedures for the battery' banks and L battery; chargers ?will' reduce plant safety-margins ' :While : none; of the :- allegations c raised.)in' Proposedf Contentions 3,
' 4,' 5, 6 and 7_ meets the requirements of:10 C.F.R. 5. 2.714(b) of the' Comniission's -
' regulations, insofar as their admissibility 'as contentions is concerned, the' allegations -
-do set forth aspects of the proceeding about.which' Petitioners wish to intervene.
I
' Therefore, the Pitition satisfies the aspect requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(2) -
. of the Commission's regulations.
In Proposed Contentions ~ l'andL2,0 on theiother hand,-Phtitioners fall-to
. allege issues or aspects'which sati$fh the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(2)
, of the Commission's regulations. Proposed Co'ntentions.1 and 2 recite language i , .
'- ; +
s
1
-?;
-l d
., ' from 10 C.F.R. Il 51.20,; 51.21, and 51.22' ofcthe Commission's regulations . j l
concerning the criteria for. and identification of licensing and regulatory actions - requiring environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, 'and i
. t categorical exclusions fromL those requirements, and' contend that the proposedi l
- amendments will not meet the statutory; requirements' The Petitioners merely :
1
' quote regulatory language and assert noncomplians:j however, this. does not--
- provide. sufficient-information to apprise the NRC Staff as1to the. aspects the .
3 Petitioners wish to pursue. The~ issues set forth in Proposed Contentions.1 and 2 d do not; raise' aspects related to the proposed license: amendments, For. these 1 reasons,-Proposed Contentions'I and 2 do not meet the aspect requirements of- J 10 C.F.R. I 2i714(a)(2). .
~!
D. Standards Governing Admissibility of Contentions ' 1 Pursuantito 10 C.F.R I 2.714(b)(1) contentions are not1 required at this stage) a
- m. of the proceeding, but the. Staff will re'spond n'ow tolthe, contentions set forth by( j Petitioners for completeness. In order for Petitioners' contentions to be'~ admitted' j
, 'as matters in controversy inj this proceeding, the :contentionsimust; satisfy; the: req.iirements of 10 C.F.R.. I 2.714(b)(2) of the C t ommission'sirchlations; The
+
3~ . ,
+
-Licensing Boafd may refuse to admit a contention if:- I(1) the contention and- '
, .. supporting material fall to satisfy.the requirements of 10 C.F.Rf 6 2.714(b)(2)', or
+ ; (2) the contention,if proven,-wouldLbe of nojconsequence'in the proceeding 1 because it would.not entitle petitioner to relief. -10 C.F.R. I 2.714(d)(2); fee aho: .i
* "i
" Rules'of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedingsdiocedural Changes.in the
+ - . o ,
, : Hearing Process". 54 Fed.'. Reg. 33168 (August 11, 1989). . !
+
f . f i
- e. ,
;p M .) .
7 , .A- .. > a: , . t b l. 'j f f (- } ,; g .{ ; * { f.,
. : : .. ~- ' .
_.._2.. L... . . --- - - -- -+ ~. - ~ ** ~ - ~ " *" ~
- , d 1
l l e p - 13 . i
, The threshold for admission of contentions was raised by amendments to the i
Commission's regulations. 54 Fed. Reg. 33168,L The Commission has stated that: 9 Under these new rules e intervenor.will have to provide a concise J statement of the alleged 10 cts or expert opinion-which support the l, contention and on which, at the time of filing, the intervenor intends. ! l to rely in proving the.centem'on at hearing, together with references ,, to the specific sources and documents of which the intervenor is aware and on which the intervenor intends to rely in' establishing the validity l of its contention. This requirement does not call upon the intervenor ; to make its case at this stage of the proceeding, but rather to indicate - ' what facts or. expert opinions, be it one fact or opinion or many, of. which it is aware at that point in time which provide the basis for its l 1
- contention, In addition to providing'a statement of facts and sources, the new rule j will also require intervenors to submit with'their list of contentions - j sufficient informationl(which may include the known significant facts i described above) to show that a genuine dispute exists between the:
~
- petitiorer and the applicant or. licenseeLon'a material issue' of law or fact. This will require the intervenor to read the pertinent portions ;
of the license application, including the Safety- Analysis Report and the Environmental' Report, and to state the. applicant's position and the petitioner's opposing view,y Where the intervenor believes the -
. application and= supporting mnterial do not address a relevant matter, '
it w'll be sufficient.to explain;why the~ application is' deficient. 54 Fed. Reg..at 33170. .
'In promulgating these amendments to 10 C.F.R. 62.714(b), the Commission -
noted that Commission case law' generally remains' applicable to determinations by 1 1 adjudicatory boards 'asa to whetheriaiproposed contention is .adinissible. For; j . . s ,. a example, the rule that -a , licensing' board 3hould not address 'the merits of a H , . contention when .'determiningyitsFs'dmissibilityc remains unchanged- by the y, , . amendments. 54 Fed. Reg, at 33170; see Allens Creek, ALAB 590,11' NRC 542. , Proposed contentions must fall wisin the scope of the issues set forth in the notice t of hearing-initiating the proceedi g., Public Service Co. ofindiana, Inc. (Marble < l 3 L a 41
~
,9 i
.. ill : ' )
.,p
,, _ , ,e+ -
$'o A""' ^^
,A R
\ . l. -
p . . 14 . , b' Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),L ALAB 316, 3 NRC 167,.170 71 P- (1976); see also Commonwealth Edison Co., et al. (Carroll County Site), AI.AB-601, l p 4, 12 NRC 18,24 (1980). f h The purposes of the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b)(2) are (1) to
- assure that the contention in question raises a.~ matter appropriate for adjudica'tlon in a particular proceeding,L(2) to establish a.'sufficiente foundation for the contention to.warrent further inquiry;into:the subject: matter addressed by the assertion and,'(3) to put' the other parties sufficiently"on botice of the issues so
- o. i that they= know generally. what they will havel to;defendl against or oppose.
i Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach- Bottom Atomic Power Station,j Units 2 ~and'3),. 1 ALAB 216, 8 AEC 13, 20 21 (1976).- A1 proffered contention must be rejected : where: (1)'it constitutes an. attack on applicable regulatory requirements; (2) it challenges the basic" structure of the Commission's1 regulatory process ortis an , m , q attack :on the regulations; (3) it is nothing more (than .algeneralization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable' policies odgh tohe;((4) it seeks to raise
. . . < i> ,
f c an issue which is not proper for adjudication in.the proceeding or does not apply = ! - to the facility in question'; or (5) it seeks to raise an ' issue (which is not concrete: l9 ' or litigable. Id.-
~
U ; yg t ;. > The Commission however,u by amending #10.C.F.R. : 6. 2.714,; specifically. . Q7 overturned the Appeal: Board's' holding that 10 C.F.RRI 2.714 does not require a. yg ; L.
- petitioner to describe facts / supporting'its. hroposed contention. :54 Fed.- Reg.
~
L ,, at 33170; 10_ C.F.R. I 2.714(b)'; see Allens CreekA ALAB 590,'11'NRC at 546-49;; L, .; 3
S Mississippi Power and Light Co.- (Grand l Gulf l Nuclear Station,L Units 1 ~and 2),
y . 7 i X. i py" J M- q/>, ' 4 t, ' ' $,I -e il g[ { N y s% lh' Al? . ~:U:"~-- , 1
H 1 15: - j ALAB 130, 6 AEC 423, 425-26 (1973).' The submission of alleged facts sufficient '
. to demonstrate that a genuine dispute of law or' fact e'xists'is required under :
10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) of thel Commission's regulations; "the - filing . of a . vague, unparticularized ' contention, followed : by an endeavor to . flesh. it out through - l discovery against the applicant". was rejected even before the Commission revised Section 2.714 See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Generating Station, Units l I and 2), -ALAB 687,L16 NRC'460,.468 l(1982),: vacated in part on .other grounds, j CLI 8319,(17 NRC 1041 (1983).. ] q A petition that provides a long and Ateiied list of omissions and probleb ;
- does not, without more, set forth' a basir. for. blieving that there is a safety issue.;
, i.
Philadelphia Electric Co. L(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),-- ALAB- ,3 819,22 NRC 681,725 (1985)L A petitioner also hasLan obligation to examine the [ publicly available documents relevant to a proceeding which could serve as a basis' ; for a contention. Id.;l10 C.F.R. f 2.714(b).f A' sufficient basis ~ for a contention'is not established by simpt referencing a large;nu~mber of ' documents; Instead, an ;- h a intervenor'must clearly identify.:and summarize?t he facts being relied upon, andl ,l identify and append specific portions of the documents referenced ' Commonwealth .! Edison Co. (Braidwood = Nuclear Power Station,? Units 1, an'd 2)JLBP-85 20, 214NRC 1732,1741 (1985), rev'd and remanded on othergrounds,;CLI-86-8,23 NRC -
, 241_(1986)'
l:.: "The Commission's holding'that a' member of the public has no absolute right
.i to: intervene in a nuclear plant licensing proceeding:under the A.tomic Energy Act:
remains unchanged under the new regulations.154 Fed._ Reg. at 33170; the Atomic r y r( , , > ' ' 7. j l ' '
,, W .- T.
?
,l .,
l w,)A%'
+
, M ' -m
' L . .t . := >
(-
. 16 -
Energy Act at 6.189a (42 U.S.C. 6 2239); see BPI v.' AEC, 502 F.2d 424, 428 29 (D.C. Cir.1974). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714, "a ' proper request' by a member of the public shall include a statement of the facts supporting each contention together with references and documents on which the intervenor relies to establish those facts." 54 Fed. Reg. at.33170/ .Moreover, no' independent right to intervene-in nuclear licensing proceedings is established by the Administrative Procedure Act.
. See 5 U.S.C. Il 551, et seq.; Easton Utilities Commission v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847; 852 (D.C/ Cir.1970)(en banc)..
To set forthL ani admissible contention, anjintervenor' must provide some factual basis for its. position and bemonstrate'that there exists a genuine dispute. between it and a licensee.: 54 Fed. Reg. at 33171. The Commission's regulations preclude "a contention from being adtriitted where'an -intcrvenor' has no facts to support itsiposition:and where thetintervenorjcontemplates.using discoveryJor cross. examination as a fishing expedition lwhichmight produce relevant supporting facts." Id.;<see also BPI v. -AEC,? 502 F.2d at 429 ;- EA.: person:. or organization'
,; seeking admission' to a licensing proceedingfis 'e'x pected 'to have read "the portions t
of the application'(insluding the applicans(safety.and environmental reports) that
~ - address any issues:of concern 'to it and ~ demonstrate that a dispute exists between it and.the applicant on a material issue of. fact or law.""54 Fed.; Reg. at'33171.
t Standards for admissibility of contentions'that are similar t'o i 2.714(b) of '
, : the Commission's' amended regulations; have been upheld by t' he federal courts in '
.. n .. , . . . *
- t .
. the past.f Vermont Yankee Ndclear Power Corp. v. NRC, 435 U.S. 519, 23a24, 544 55
- o. .
[(1978);1ndependent Bankers Assh. of Georgia v. Board of Govemors, 516 F.2d 1206, a J P 1 g l '
- y. .
o. 1 .
>s; i t 3
m # l
+-
1220 27 (1975); Connectkut Bankers Assh.' v. Board of Govemors, 627 F.2 245, 25l' 1
; (D.C. Cir.1980).t As stated by the Court in Connecticut Bankers, "a protestant does . ;
. , , Enot become entitled to an evidentiary hearing merely on request, or on a bald 'or. '
conclusory allegation' that such a dispute' exists." Comtecticut Bankers, 627 F.2d at 251 '- A petitioner is required to set forth material facts inidispute,. at a 3 % minimum, to show that further inquiry is warranted.14. The Commission states: that the revision to'10 C.F.R. I 2.714 is' consistent with these decisions. 54 Fed.; , Reg. at 33171'. l E. General Anolication of Standards Governing Admissibility of Contentions . t y' LPetitioners have ' proposed se en contentions for admission-as matters in-
;i controversy in this. proceeding.; All of the proposed contentions suffer from the ~ i i
same defects. The1 proposed contentions 1do not satisfy theistandards? for ~ 3 admissibility set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.7i4(b) of:the Commission's regulations .
.a
];:
There are three ways in which the proposed./ contentions fallito meet'the Commission's regulations. First, the proposed contentions'do not contain a concise . statement of the facts or expert. opinion which supports Petitioners' contentions. : Next, there areino specific: citations to theJdocuments?which ;will: be.used by y; y,
- Petitioners to establish 1the factsi and expert opinionLwhichi support theirz
. contentions, < Finally, Petitioners'have not provided sufficieni information to'show:
, the existence of a genuine dispute:with respect to an issue of' material fact or law.' ,
LThe portions' of Petitioners' proposed ' contentions 'whihh state iuves to'be litigated
~
[., Lin 'thislproceedingiare nothing more[than phrasesitaken fromilJeensee'slNo? q e, h . Significant Hazards DeterminaliSn"in of the" Amendment' Applicstionc (Hereinafter: i o eI i E i 3 ,
, iliS #
, ,33 f( N! p,
,? >s p - ): ' G;'
s
?: a
% kN,$ :.L: u?, ,a, -
- - - ~
3 i I I ' i 18 Attachment 1). P Jtioners then go on to. state in their brief explanation that the l changes reduce safety margins and provide a means for unsafe plant operation. i ! / See e.g., Petition at 3 9.. Petitioners do not' indicate in any of their proposed i contentions what safety margin is hing reduced and why they believe proposed _ l 4., changes would reduce. that safety margin. The contentions do not allege ; noncompliance with any NRC regulatory requirements. As's basis for each of the proposed contentions, Petitioners argue that the proposed actions will reduce safety rnargins or will result in the release of fission products into the environment. - Id.8 This is not a concise statement of the facts which support the contention as contemplated by the Commission's regulations. The statements do not set out the facts relating to the specific changes in question which would lead one to believe that the change would result in a relaxation of a safety margin or in'a release of radiation,. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b), l Petitioners are not permitted to state vague comentions which are to be fleshed i out during ditcovery. Instead they must set forth enough facts to demonstrate that there is a genut.,e issue to be heard. 54 Fed.' Reg.' 33168.- Petitioners 1, ave not indicated what expert opinion they intend to rely on to 1 prove their contentlens. The Commission's regulations require a' statement of the >
. facts and expert opinion supporting the' contention. The rule contemplated that i
3 a peiltioner would set forth an expert technical opinion to' explain why, for l example, the reduction of a surveillance requirement would reduce a~rafety margin, a.- _ .) _ .1 ' 2 Indeed, reviewtd in their best light, the contentions to this extent, appear _ i to : be o imperrr.issible challer.ges to the Staff's . no - significant hazards. ! consideration evaluation. See 10 C.F.R. 5.50.58(b)(6). ? l f + .- - t
19 Merely stating non expert opinions on proposed actions is insufficient to satisfy the : requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations. i Finally, Petitioners have not presented sufficient information with respect to their contentions for the Ucensing Board to determine whether a genuine dispute with respect to an issue of material fact or. law exists to be heard. Since Petitioners have not set forth either Ucensee's position 'as expressed in the application with respect to the issues they wish to raise, or facts which dispute l with Ucensee's position, the Board and parties cannot determine whether a dispute over a material issue actually er!sts. Each of these general defects will be discussed in greater detail with respect to the specific proposed contentions. F. Responses to Proposed Contentions l 1 P.roposed contention L !
-Petitioners' Proposed Contention 1 states: I q
The license amendments sought by Florida Power and Ught Company ) (Applicant),in this proceeding are a major Federal action significantly j affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore require l an erwironmental impact statement.
]
Petition at 3. ed the basis for Proposed Contention 1, Petitioners make four I statements: _(1) that an environmental impact statement is required; (2) that the Staffs decision whether to-issue an ~ environmental impact statement may be i challenged in a hearing; (3) that the Staff did not submit a No Significant Hazards j l Evaluation (sic) of the amendment application, but "merely affirmed" the Ucensee's j
?.
;5
, 1
, a i
,j ,
,). :
~
\
20 submittal;8 and (4) that operations safety margins would be relaxed by the proposed action which could lead to the release of radioactive materials into the ,. emironment. - 14. De Commission's regulations set forth the criteria for the identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental frapact statements in 10 C.F.R. I 51.20; see also 42 U.S.C. 6 4332(2)(C). An environmental impact statement is not required for a non major action or an action which does not have a significant impact on the environment. Sierra Club v. Nassell, 636 F.2d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.1981). Once an agency has determined that the emironmental-impacts 'of a proposed action are not significant, it is unnecessary for. an environmental impact statement to be prepared. Stephens v. Adams,469 F. Supp. 1222 (D. Wis,1979). The scope _ of a NEPA environmental review of a license amendment is more limited than one performed prior to initial licensing. Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear: Plant), ALAB-636,13 NRC 312, 323 329 (1981); Florida Power and Light Coc, (Turk'ey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 i and 4), LBP 8114,13 NRC 677,.684 85 (1981). A NEPA review for a license s 1 8 he NRC' Staffs Propsed No Significant Hazards Consideration y Determination was published in the Federal Register on September 26,1990. ;
- Florida Power and Light Co.; Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to 1
- Facility = Operating) Licenses - and Proposed No Significant Hazards t Consideration Determi...non and Opportunity for Hearing," 55 Fed. Reg.
. 39331 -(September 26,1990). 'The Staff reviewed the IJeensee's NSHE provided in Attachment 1 of its July 2,1990 license amendment proposal. ~
Based on that review, the Staff agrees with the licensee's conclusions that ! the proposed amendments involve no significant hazards consideration." Id. at 39331. 1 I
21 . amendment requires an evaluation of only those environmental impacts beyond those evaluated previously that will result from the proposed action. Id. He ,. Appeal Board in addressing this concern stated: Nothing in NEPA or in those judicial decisions to which our attention has been directed dictates that the same ground be wholly replowed in connection with a proposed (license] amendment. . . . Rather, it seems manifest to us - that ; all that need be undertaken is a consideration of whether the amendment itsc!f would bring about significant environmental consequences beyond those previously assessed and, if so, whether those consequences -(to t1e extent unavoidable) would be sufficient on balance to rec uite a denial of the amendment application. This is 'true irrespect vo of whether, by happenstance, the particular amendment is nect,ssary in order to enable continued reactor operation . . . . Nonhem States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuc1 car Generating Plant, Units 1 and ! 2), ALAB 455,7 NRC 41,46 n.4 (1978). A petitioner raising a NEPA claim is required to show that a dispute exists I between it and the lleensee or the Staff on a material issue of fact or law. l 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b)(2)(iii); 54 Fed. Reg at 33172, if emironmental issues are set forth in the licensee's- emironmental documenti..the petitioner must raise contentions based on that document. Id. De Staff i; not required to take the l
\
same position as a licensee.whenjthe Staff issues its environmental document, and a petitioner has the right to. Enend or supplement contentions based on new l information in the Staffs environmental document. Id.; Duke Power Co. et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CU 8319,17 NRC 1041,1047 (1983). Petitioners do not raise a substantial environmental is ae concerning the i proposed amendments which would ~ constitute a significant impact on the environment. Petitioners do not demonstrate. that a dispute exists between.them i f
22 - , and the Licensee on a material issue of fact or law which is litigable under NEPA. They merely allege that an emironmental impact statement should be prepared without setting out a concise statement of facts or expert opinion to support this contention. Specific citations to the documents which Petitioners will use to demonstrate the facts or expert opinion whlen stpport their claims are absent from the Petition. This contention does not constitute a NEPA based contention which is admissible in this proceeding. Petitioner's Proposed Contention I should not be admitted into this proceeding because it lacks the requisite basis. '
- Proposed Contention 2.
Petitioners' Proposed Contention 2 states:
~
The licensing and regulatory action subject to the applicant's license amendment requests require an enviro [n) mental assessment.- Petition at 4. { Petitioners set forth the bald assertion that the proposed amendment requires the preparation of an emironmental arsessment, which fails to set out'a proper basis for Proposed Contention 2. They merely make four assertions in their basis: (1) that an ~ environmental assessment is required; (2) that the i Commission may require the preparation of an environmental assessment for an I action subject to a categorical exclusion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 51.22(b); (3) that a
- i. ,
the' Staff! did not submit. a No Significant Hazards Evaluation (sic) of the y amendment application but 'mcrely affirmed" the Applicant's submittal;".and g 4 (4) that; the license amendments would significantly relax operational safety " a See supra at note '2.' Y
'u 'I I
23 - margins, which could lead to releases of radioactive materials into the environment. , Petition at 4. Id. ' The decision to prepare an environmental impact statement or an em'ironmental assessment, or to determine that a proposed action is eligible for a categorical exclusion is made by the NRC Staff. 10 C.F.R. $ 51.25. Under the Commission's regulations, an environmental impact statement is not automatically required for the proposed action. See 10 C.F.R. I 51.20. The Staff determines whether an environmental assessment is required or whether the action falls within - 5 a categorical exclusion for which no environmental document is requ.' red. See 10 C.F.R. Il 51.21, 51.22(b), 51.22(c)(9) and (10), 51.14(a). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.' 5 2.714(b)(2)(iii) of the Commission's regulations, a petitioner must establish that a genuine dispute exists concerning a materialissue of fact between him and the Licensee. Sec 54 Fed. Reg at 33172. Petitioners' i Proposed Contention 2. merely . alleges that . an environmental assessment is required. Petitioners fail to demonstrate a dispute with the Lic.r- on a material i issue of law or fact. Proposed Contention 2 is not suppor . by a concise statement of facts or expert opinion as is required by 6 2.714(b). . Furthermore, Petitioners present no special circumstances under which the Commission could ! exercise its discretion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 51.22(b) and require the preparation
'. s " Categorical Exclusion' means a category of actions which do not individually.-
or cumulatively. have a significant effect 'on' the human environment .and ; l
.which the Commission has found to have no such effect in accordance with procedures set out?in 5 51.22, and for which, therefore,i neither an environmental assessment ' nor- an environmental- impact statement is-required." 10 C.F.R. 6 51.14(a), Definitions.:
i I _._i____.___i___
24 of an emironmental impact statement for an action subject to a categorical exclusion. Petitioners' Proposed 'ontention 2 fails to meet the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations and should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding, hoposed Contention 3. Petitioners' Proposed Contention 3 states: The desl J n of the Applicant's Emergency Power System provides for an intert e between the two Turkey Point nuclear units supplying an-alternate AC power supply to a blackout unit through the use of an operating Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) on the non blackout unit. The Applicant failed to address the alternate AC 'intertle'in their-Technical Specifications. 'ne 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 l 1 equipment. . Petition at 5. I Petitioners state that under the proposed Emergency Power System enhancement project the Licensee will employ an intertie between the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 to ensure that an alternate alternating current power source i is available in the event that all' alternating current power at one of the Turkey Point unk were lost. Id. They also assert that the Turkey Point Tuhnical Specifications do not contain a provision relating to the intertie. Id. Petitioners suggest that the absence of an intertie technical specification will result in a serious accident; however, they fall to set forth a basis for their opinion. Id. 1
,, In its application, the Licensee states that plant' procedures incorporate appropriate testing and surveillance requirements to ensure that necessary station h
o' i
't . . .
25 - blackout equipment is operable. Attachment 1 at 2. Petitioners do not present any factual support which rebuts the Licensee's conclusion, in fact, they.do not even consider it. In addition, Petitioners list five documents upon which they rely to support this proposed contention. See Petition at 5. The Petitioners make no ! attempt to relate the documents to the proposed amendments, in addition, these general citations are insufficient to meet the requirement that Petitioners must clearly identify and sumr.arize the facts nn1 expert opinion upon which they will rely in litigating their proposed contentions. . Although they are required to point i to the specific sect.ons of documents which support their contentions, the i Petitioners have failed to do so. Petitioner's Proposed Contention 3 falls to meet i the basis requircraents of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations and should not be admitted as an issue in, controversy in this proceeding. Proposed Contention 4. -! Petitioners' Proposed Contention 4 states: j The Applicant's amendment request would relax existing plant safety margins - at TS 3/4.8.1.1 AC SOURCES : OPERATING which currently require thel testing of the redundant Emergency Diesel Generators after any failure or any problem which rendcrs the EDO. Inoperable.
- Petition at 6. Petitioners allege; without any factual support, that this change will-i result in unsafe plant, operation and relaxation of safety margins. They do not . !
explain what safety margins will be affected by the proposed change, nor do theyL explain why a relaxation in a safety margin would result from the proposed change., I In its application, the Licensee states that the proposed change is consistent ' with the Standard Technical Specifications and current NRC guidance for the- j x .
. I
.. ,s
l i 26 l l l 1 testing of redundant EDGs, which require testing to be performed after any failure I i
- or any problem rendering the EDG inoperable. ~ Attachment 1 at 26 27. Testing i'
is conducted to demonstrate that a similar, problem does _not exist with the l l redundant EDO. The Technical Specifications changes proposed here 'would I; relieve the Ucensee from testing a redundant EDG under circumstances where an operable' EDG is removed from service because of preplanned maintenance. or- ! testing, not because a failure or problem has_ made the EDG inoperable. Id. ! l Thus, when an EDG is intentionally removed from service, the Ucensee is aware ; i of why the EDG is inoperable. Therefore, it is unnecessary to test for similar problems, i'd. The Ucensee concluded thatt it is acceptable to provide an exemption to this testing when an EDO is taken out of service for preplanned preventative maintenance or testing. Reducing the number of unnecessary -EDG tests is in : accordance with Generic Letter 8415 and current NRC Juldance. j Since the EDGs are not initiators of FSAR analyzed-accicents and: 1 this change serves to enhance EDG reliability, there is no'increve in
. the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
Id. at 26. The Ucensee also states that the proposed change, enhances EDG ; i reliability by reducing the. number of EDG tests which reduce EDG wear and,- ; therefore, does not significantly reduce a margin of safety. ld, at 27. -
' Petitioners have not addressed the technical positions the Ucensee set forth in the application. They merely' assert asla basis for Proposed Contention 4 that >
testing of redundant EDG's is conducted to " demonstrate that the redundant EDGi 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 butt of the repair to' l
i the failed EDG.", Petition at 6. (Emphasis 'added.) IMt only is this assertion -
l_ . ) l
}
l
~
1 .
. t
.' - , , ..L..,
- _-. - .~ _ !
_ . ~ . _ _ _ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . - l l 27 - l merely a restatement of the Licensee's No Significant Hazards Determination, it
. is an inaccurate restatement. As was noted above, the reason for testing redundant ,
EDG's is to rule out the presence of problems similar to those found in the in-l. i i operable EDG, Attachment 1 at 26 27. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the testing !s not carried out to detect new problems in the redundant EDG. Furthermore, Petitioners fall to explain how repairs to the " failed EDG" could cause a "new problem" in the redundant EDG 'See Petition at 6. Petitioners also allege that the proposed change will increase the probability i of a previously analyzed accident. The. amendment, however, adds 'two diesel generators to the Turkey Point Plant. Petitioners have not set forth any reasons why the addition of two back up generators, for use when one generator is taken out of service, would increase the probability of a previously analyzed accident. i See Petition at 6.' Petitioners have not provided sufficient information to determine whether this proposed contention has' any basis, and whether a dispute as to an issue of material fact exists. In light of tlie above, Proposed Contention 4 does not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations and should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding... , Proposed Contention i Petitioners', Proposed Contention 5 states: i As evidenced at page 27 of the Applicant's NSHE, TS 3/4.8.1.1; AC SOURCES OPERATING provides for a deletion _ Verification of the- cranking diesel generators OPERABILITY has been~ removed = from ' ACTIONS "a" and: "d". . The requirement toi repeat EDG
' OPERABIIJTY demonstrations on a 24 hour frequency,'to;verifyf 4
'. compliance with LCO 3.8.2,1, and to implement a dual unit shutdown 7 is deleted from ACTIONS 1"b" and "d". 'Ihe . dual unit . shutdown'- t requirement in ACTION "(", which addresses the inoperability of a[n): .
~ ;
y , i
.f. id I ; i.7
"^'.
.___2-
~.- . . .. -. -- - +
28 - , EDO due to the performance of Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2c, is deleted in its entirety. This deletion is a relaxation of an existing plant safety margin and therefore should not be permitted. Petition at 7. This contention relates to five proposed changes concerning the operability and testing of cranking diesel generators. Petitioners argue that the proposed changes relax the margins of safety at the Turkey Point Plant and will result in the unsafe operatidn of the plant; Petition at 7. They have not alleged any factual support, expert opinion or documentary support as a basis for their contention. I They do not identify what margins of safety are involved in these proposed changes or by what mechanism the margins might be reduced. l The Licensee has determined that the proposed changes will not result-in a reduction in the margins of safety. Attachment 1 at 27 30. Petitioners do not evaluate the positions taken by the Licensee in its Amendment- Application. They merely offer a contrary point of view. For example, Petitioners contend- that removing the requirement to verify the operability of the cranking diesel generators i will reduce a safety margin, but they offer no factual support for their allegation. Petition at 7. Petitioners fall to refute the Ucensee's finding that the cranking ) diesel generators are not safety related equipment and are no longer necessary to assure additional onsite electrical capacity; because . two safety-grade. diesel I
, generators will be added ^and the overall reliability of the electrical power l system -
= will be improved by the proposed amendments. . Attachment 1 at 27, In their challenge to the deletion of the requirement to repeat EDG.
J operability demonstrations every 24 hours, Petitioners neither acknowledge nor 4 i
.)
I disuedit the Ucensee's determination that the deletion applies only to situations where a timely (i.e., within 72 hours) shutdown will be' initiated, if the operable EDG is not restored. See Petition at 7; Attachment- 1 at 27. In addition, Petitioners present no factual support to refute the Ucensee's assertion, which is l based on the NRC Staffs Ger? tic I.etter 8415, that excessive testing of EDGs may- result in excessive wear and tear and ' eventual degradation'of an EDG engine's reliability. See Attachment 1 at 27._ Petitioners also argue that deleting' the requirement to verify compliance with Action 3.8.2.1 will reduce a margin of safety. Petition at 7. HoEever, they do not support their position or disprove the Ucensee's statement that new Action 3.8.2.1d subsumes the deleted requirement by providing for verification- of all required systems, subsystems, trains,' components, and devices that depend on the remaining operable EDGs. See ' Attachment 1 at 28,29; Amendments Application, Attachment 2 at 3/4 815. (Hereinaiter Attahhment 2).- l Petitioners also challenge the' deletion of the 4 du~al unit ' shutdown requirements in 3.8.2.1b, d and e, claiming this is a relaxation of a margin of - safety. Petition at 7. Petitioners do not rebut the Ucensee's conclusion that the deletion of the dual unit shutdown requirements is appropriate because of the j proposed design modifications. See Attachment 1 at 28. - The Ucensee concluded l that: i' [ulnder the new configuration with four EDGs, only three' EDGs (two associated with' the operating unit and one'from the opposite _ unit) are required for single unit operation. When both units are at power,.
,,- all four EDG must be OPERABLE For the'both units.at power i case, _which is the1only operating configuration where a dual unit shutdown would be of concern, loss of one EDG only impacts the unit 1 s
J 30 -
)
associated with the fauhed EDG (assuming all other TS requirements for the opposite unit are satisfied). The opposite unit is still in L compliance with the 140. . . . Therefore, the deletion of the dual unit shutdown requirements:is appropriate because of the design modifications.' ,
. 1 Id. Petitioners' final compla!nt in Proposed Contention 5 concerns the deletion of l
surveillance requirement 4.8.1.1.2c. : Petitioners do not offer any facts or expert t i' opinion that discredits the Licensee's conclusion that the removal of this i requirement results in a more restrictive Technical Specification at Action 3.8.1.1b. See Attachment l'at 28 29; Attachment 2 at 3/4 8 2. ! In light of Petitioners' failure to address in any detail the actual effect of. the. proposed changes on the Emergency Power System, they have not provided sufficient information to ' determine whether a genuine dispute concerning a l material fact exists. Therefore, the proposed contention- does not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6.2.714(b) of the Commission's 'egulations and should 4 not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding. Proposed Contention 6. : L Petitioners' Proposed Contention 6 states: l ( l 'As evidenced in the Applicant's NSHE at page 37 a relaxation of an l: existing plant safety margin will be incorporated into T3 3/4.8.1.1 AC l SOURCES OPERATIONS. Relaxations - Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2a.3 j , which required verification, that a fuel transfer pump; started and i: transferred fuel from the storage tank to the day tank in accordance t with the frequency of Tabl_e 4.81 is revised and renumbered ~ as l' 4.8.1.1.2b. This revised version requires a demonstration on a 92 day. 3 frequency with an automatic start. . , t
'L Petition at 8.
Petitioners allege that this change is an unacceptable relaxation of a safety ,
. margin because it requires a demonstration that a fuel transfer pump was started:
_.f-f
.. 3 e
- k.
. ., .s.. , . - - .
l l t 31 and that fuel was transferred from the storage tank to the day tank on a 92 day l
,, frequency with an automatic start, rather than on a 31 day frequency' with a manual start. See Id. This contention merely rollerates the Ucensee's description -
of the proposed cha.'ges with Petitioners' view added that such changes would reduce safety margins. - Petitioners do not present facts or expert opinion to dispute - the Ucensee's position that the proposed frequency for testing will provide i adequate assurance of pump operability with the added benefit of verifying the auto start capability and will not involve a significant reduction in a safety margin. Attachment 1 at 38. I The EDG fuel transfer system, which is the subject of this surveillance, is designed to automatically maintain. an adequate fuel supply to, an EDG by automatically transferring fuel from the storage tank to the day tank when a - 1 predetermined low level is reached in the day tank. Id. at 37.' The existing surveillance does not require the testing of the auto start function because'nearly. all of the required pump starts are manual. Id. at 37-38. The Ucensee has stated I that the revised surveillance schedule provides ,a' better' demonstration' of the operability of the design because it requires that the auto start capability is tested. Id. at 38. The reduction in the freqcc::cy c.i surveillance is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications and Staff guidance. Id.; see " Proposed Staff Actions to Improve and Maintain Diesel Generator Reliability," Generic Letter -
-. - 8415 Quly 2,' 1984),
t
'9
' Table' 4.81 sets out conditions whereby more frequent surveillance maybe required. See Attachment 2 at 3/4 8-10.
.I 32 l
1 It appears that Petitioners do not understand the purpose of the fuel transfer ( pump surveillance procedure or the effect the proposed change will have on the i
, surveillance procedure. They ~ allege that "[t]he most important aspect of this ;
surveillance is the frequency of testing to ensure proper operability of the ; automaticfunction of the design and to ensure proper fuel supply in the day tank? .
. i Petition at 8. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners take the position that the frequency of the surveillance to test the operability of the auto start fertion should not be' ;
i reduced by the proposed amendments. Id. The present Technical Specifications i do not require regularized testing of the auto start function of the EDG fuel ' transfer system; the proposed changes are actually more restrictive because testing in accordance with a 92 dsy surveillance schedule is now required. ' Attachment at 37 38, t Petitioners also assert chat "the frequency of testing should remain unchanged V and the length of the EDG test mn should be increased to permit the functional . testing of the automatic design feature of the system? 1d. (Emphasis added.) l They also argue that the' duration of the suiveillance as required by the current f t Technical Specifications should be increased. Id. No facts or expert opinion have !
- been advanced by Petitioners in support of these allegations. Petitioners have not provided sufficient information for the Board to determine whether there is actually i a dispute as to a material issue involved in this proceeding.- For the rer,ons stated L '. above, this contention does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.P. I 2.714(b) of ,
the Commission's. regulations for admission as a matter in controvery in thin
.- 9 -
l
+ proceeding. -
i 1
.I - . , - - . . . . . . . - . ~ . - .
33 ., Proposed contention 7. Petitioners' Proposed Contention 7 states: As evidenced in the Applicants' NSHE .at page 59, Surveillances 4.8.2.1c and e have been deleted. Surveillance 4.8.2.1c required rotating the pilot cell and checking water level every 31 d:.ys. Surveillance 4.8.2.le required performance of a battery charger visual inspection quarterly. Also, the requirement to verify a ha.ttery charger i, equalizing charge is started, found in Notes 1 and 2 of Table 4.8-2, has been deleted. These deletions represent a significant reduction of the safety margin currently established in the T3 and could result in the failure of the EDO when challenged. Petition at 9. Petitioners argue that the deletion of surveillances in 4.8.2.1c and e will result in unsafe plant operation and will significantly reduce. safety margins. Id. No facts or expert opinion are offered as bases for.this assertion.. Petitioners ! do not explain what safety! margins will be affected or how safety will be compromised. The Ucensee provided technical bases for these proposed changes and concluded that the changes will have no effect on the safety margin at the Turkey Point Plant. Petitioners, however, do not refer to the Ucensee's technical position, nor do they. identify a genuine dispute of fact that exists between them and the Ucensee. l The proposed changes delete surveillance requirements that are not required to verify the operability of batteries. Attachment 1 at 59. The Ucensee concluded I that: Operation of the facility in accordance with ti.s propsed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a n:argm of safety. The
= deleted surveillance requirements..(4.8.2.1c and e) are preventive
'* maintenance items only. Failure to perform Survelilance 4.8.2.1c will have no effect on the margin of safety because Surveillance 4.83 la,
- wliich is performed more frequently than Surveillance 4.8.2.1c (weeklys vetsus monthly), verifies redundant pilot cell: requirements.: The l
Surveillance 4.8.2.le deletion does not significantly affect the margin. j l
)
s
. 34 of safety because its required [ visual). Inspection of the battery chargers does not determine if this equipment is operable or not.
1 /d. at 59-60. '!he deletion of the requirement to verify that an equalizing charge. was started will not affect safety margins because the battery parameter limits of Table 8.4 2 define the operability requirements of the batteries.14. Petitioners do not explain how the substitution of more frequent surveillance of pilot cell requirements than previously required will reduce a' margin of safety. Nor_have Petitioners demonstrated how the deletion of visual inspections of a battery charger will result in an accident, particularly when required functional tests of this equipment, required by proposed Technical Specifications Surveillance 4.8.2.lc4, demonstrate proof of operability. See Petition at 9; Attachment 2 at 3/4 814. The proposed contention and its' supporting basis do not provide sufficient information for the Licensing Board to determine ~ that a genuine dispute as to a material issue of law or fact has been raised ~ .Therefore, the proposed contention does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R[l 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations and should not be admitted asf a matter in controversy in this proceeding. ' O. i 4 '_a i 4
*. 1
'g
, y' ,.-_ ;>.
i e 33 ; i V. CONCLUSION I NEAP and Mr. Saporito have not established that they have the requisite l
, standing to intervene in this proceeding, although they have satisfied the aspects' :
requirements- of L the Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R ( 2.714(a)(2). I Petitioners also have failed to set forth an admissible contention. Therefore, the t i Petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing of NEAP and Mr. Saporito 'i c should be denied. , Oo
,an., n Patrica Jehle l Counsel for NRC Dated at Rockville, Maryland
- this 14th day of November,1990.
t 7
^
f 9- i
;e e e'
[ '.i f
.i i j
, O ,
.. ..:),s,-..s - ,. -
IJace,[iED ' IYhlILD ! U5NkC JbNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COgMgl$ All:32 % NOV 15 f.ll l
. BEFORE THE COMMISSION .
., croct c4 ticwt.M ',Sc' ff CHE tai?
OOCK[i 3 4 y':Vil.I ( hf,[/4[ItN!ll g '* In the Matter of
~
. Dockei $SE 50250-OLA j 50 251 OLA L FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT Emergency Power System
, . COMPANY Enhancement Project j (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 ) : and4) CERTIFICATE OF SERVIN ; l hereby certify that copies of *NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR - ! HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF NEAP AND . THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR."in the above captioned proceeding have been rerved l on the following by deposit in the United States mall, fira..! ass, or as indicated by i an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this'14th day of November,1990: Chairman Kenneth M. Carr* '. .. Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers' l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washingto ,- D.C 20555 ' Washington, D.C 20555 - 1 Commissioner James R. Curtiss' - Commissioner Forrest J. Remick' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555 . Washington, D.C 20555 1 Steven P. Frantz,' Esq. (2) Atomic Safety and Licensing Harold F. Reis, Esq. . Board Panel (1)* Newman and Holtzmger U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' Commission 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C 20036 .
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal :'
John T. Butler, Esq. Board Panel (5)*
. Steel, Hector & Davis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
? 4000 Southeast Financial Center Washington, D.C. 20555 '
Miami, FL 331312398 i [ r L'.
. ,m ., ,.~.,.....,# . . . . , , , . . . . - . , . _ . . - . ~ . . + . . . . . . - . ,i.-, '
2 Nuclear Energy Accountability Adjudicatory File (2) Project Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 129 Board .. Jupiter, FL 33468 0129 U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commission
., Washington, D.C. 20555 Stewart Ebneter I Regional Administrator Office of the Secretary (2)'
USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101' Marietta St., N.W. Washinpon, D C. 20555 Suite 2900 . Attn: Docketing &-Service Section Atlanta, GA 30303 Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. Post Office Box 129 Jupiter, FL 33468 0129 ' e f
)
' P 4,%W%b Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff o
i
'f q
i 4-g's-t 4 i 1
1 WNiC u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION 90 gjy 15 N1 31 j BEFORE THE COM MISSION gv l WiyMd$I)vd-o pnuch l In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50 250-OLA l
-) 50 251 OLA j
.)- l FLORIDA POWER AND LIGIIT ) )
COMPANY' )~ l
) J (Turkey Poin: Plant, Units 3 ). Emergency Power System )
and4) _) Enhancement Project j i NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned aliorney cat:rs an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 6 2.713(b),10 C.F.R., Part 2, the
'following information is provided:
- Name: Patricia Jehle i Address: U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission '
Office of the General Counsel i Washington, D.C. 20555 .) Telephone Number:' '(301) 492-1535 Admissions: I , Supreme Court of, Pennsylvania Name of Party:- NRC Staff i 1 Respectfully submitted, L , , Patricia Jehle. ] b*
~ Counsel for NRC Staff ;
" i
~ Dated at Rockville, Maryland ;
this 14th day of November,1990. l 1 3
g: O l i '9 l LOLhlilD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNC
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'90 NOV 15 A11:31 ;
BEFORE THE COMMISSION i cruci. 0; .;tcanuY In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 5025d66/$li.l/ * ,
) 50 251 OLA i
FLORIDA POWER AND IJGHT i COMPANY ) ;
) )
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 ) Emergency Power System 1 and 4) ) Enhancement Project l. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above captioned matter, in acordance with 6 2.713(b),10 C.F.R., Part 2, the following information is provided: 1 Name: Janice E. Moore ) Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel l Washington, D.C. 20555 1 Te1ephone Number: (301) 492 1588 j Admissionsi District of Columbia Court of Appeals-t Name of Party: NRC4taff , Respectfully submitted, l i C~Di R .@ M Janice E. Moore i Counsel for NRC Staff
- Dated at Rockville, Maryland . .
this 14th day of November,1990. V ij _
E i cagegD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 90 1s 15 N131 BEFORE TIIE COMMISSION-bng or uciditMcnU *G ' 5t' V'CL
- HMICH In the Matter of . ) Docket Nos. 50-250 01 2
) - 50 251-OLA
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT ) Emergency Power System COMPANY ) Enhancement Project (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVir'R 3 1 - hereby certify that copies of
- NOTICE . OF APPEARANCE OF l
l PATRICIA JEHLE" and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JANICE E. MOORE" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission's internal mail system,: this 14th day of , November,1990: Chairman Kenneth M. Carr* Commissioner Kenneth C Rogers' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555 Washington, D.C 20555 - 3 Commissioner James R. Curtiss' Commissioner Forrest.J. Remick' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555 . Washington, D.C 20555 Steven P. Frantz, Esq. (2) Atomic Safety and IJcensing
~ Harold F. Reis, Esc). Board Panel (1)*
Newman and Holtzmger U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 4 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20555
' Washington, D.C 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal John T. Butler, Esq. Board Panel (5)* !
Steel, Hector & Davis U.S; Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 4000 Southeast Financial Center Washington, D.C. 20555 Miami, FL 331312398 i
I
+ ,;f t .i
2 Nuclear Energy Accountability Adjudicatory File (2) Project Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 129 Board Jupiter, FL 33468-0129 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stewart Ebneter Regional Administrator Office of the Secretary (2)' USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 2900 Attn: Docketing & Service Section Atlanta, GA 30303 Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. Post Office Box 129 Jupiter, FL 33468 0129 , g
]? 6%2)H Patricia Jehle -
. Counsel for NRC Staff
]
a a
]
1 1 1}}