ML20117E305
| ML20117E305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1984 |
| From: | Mulley G, Mark Resner NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20115A155 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-665 84-28, NUDOCS 8505100395 | |
| Download: ML20117E305 (1) | |
Text
.
.c neu p/'
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,t WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 3,
/
Office of Inspector and Auditor CASE
SUMMARY
File No.:
84-28 TITLE:
Grand Gulf-Petition 2.206 Date Opened: 6/14/84 Investigator:
"""Y M. Resner NRC REGION:
II SITE: Grand Gulf Inspection:
Investigation:
(criminal-integrity-EED-other)
Review:
x LICENSEE:
CONTRACTOR:
ALLEGATION: That NRC inspectors and investigators committed possible improprieties and illegal acts and that OIA mishandled improprieties previously identified.
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS DATES:
4/24/84 Mulley receives JULEP 2.206 petition for review sent by Lieberman, ELD.!
5/30/84 2.206 petition reviewed by Mulley.
6/14/84 CASE OPENED.
6/14/84 Briefing paper for Commission prepared by Smith.
8/18/84 Revised briefing paper for Commission prepared by Mulley.
6/28/84 OIA interview of Ken Lawrence & Cynthia Stewart.
7/16/84 Case reassigned to Mark Resner.
i 7/18/84 OIA interview of M. Dean Houston.
t 7/24/84 OIA interview of Donald S. Brinkman.
30/84 OIA interview of Alan G. Wagner.
7 /,3/84 8/
Report prepared.
j 8/?9/84 OIA issue Report of Investigation.
C CoSG Lh i
PDR i
i
-~
gy:rg Qpq n -
j.
EO 1587 3 fbi Et-J k r.,, t i s 3 1 2. o 1 yHkac 60t-1Id-22.b1 M N 25 {T.
A/,y
) s. : 7,19 rS l.Ea.un. rug [-rkm Co usj;..ifdfirjM.[.
u.1 Osciu, R 3,,g,y,,., c
- 3,;,, 7 gg]g;{y,1,,@,,,$jb Wa.sk 4yr. a, t c..go ggg.
4 4 7efvu.e d< kW,3 b;doa.
ti. In+vvuc.
-rk ; p.r.de-co m-ri..,
o y r.;;4,.
. f u.r./.4.g.
g%
la k 14 4
.i4tAs<nt s v 4 -e.c4, 4 Lt. 4. E n u p Lthw.
oe
'PoWe 5 += Avned-+ M.
Io, Et he, opu..rty L.t =u. u..
ser F-rs,
, Hist.ss:yyt 'F6 s<< + J. t ty kr C.-qm,, p i g t 1,. t.s r u c, m t.., S. e k l His2;ss re; CIseed u L ue Auac.;s rten, y,,,gsr a Sn g ga a
' C & Ioos\\<.u % w S,a d,,
v,,:.ei, t.s.lu,< < ces..,s,,
b u tss:oe1.
% r:soe w ha.) vs.dAad..i-Hisitssl,p:
4 < g2.,,,,.,,,,j s,,
kau a < u u.sk w a L wlv:<.
o k m e sta.s e ye.,w gees, s rla,
.r;,, <,s bef.a -rw r r?
c.,
b;-r: ens.<
hw be vu rd ;g
-r k d<,,4.
call. woc. w t-et-c.'o s w c.a.
I1 72.. -4.,
e, L. L l+.4 ivuc e, t 4
%fA n,omu.ss y A ltu As h-ra w?<k eHids\\s of h94L W% sr<-
r m L <> el.rks C<s L Csti vna-a)s s.e
-ra.~,
JM4 % as k ca w.A.
a.\\,ov.c C<s.,J.. CM -rk<e9 ea.r
- rs enisrs.-u.,.cjsa. H sy, k
g,,A figgL k.a L44
.r,# Pc. rk cont +/a*4 *b e-r Jut.cf +.
,(,v,<<.
y se
<eyor,,-r; <a
+
1 4:I<a n. >> ~4ms.
l a.f -e h be'd*J *f O
'Pe.rtde n.w h.4,$ ew -et.4 ri-*,
f4fc. o.ot.s La id i J e,i*.3** -
A4/,g c,,,,,c,,.,,. b -r.,
j A ~<.~~4..~s -r t o wasn'-
SYetLA cn.,4,r f.< ogras:-i n v,
k c4
+e A. Sskssesue; C.kls4, l.Isa jjy
\\ c s.
.Et y -re,s W fr, I W 1 f
r.s.
rkoa-c it (<.~
N& 04. 2.,
W :s?
o f Lit u si,3, 4 4 4.+. p4 Wde j ?. i~ a.
41 Isk se.u ed. -%,.
De va.k.
v en Cp e ke 23, tu s-
- ~;%
- y. M -rl e- -r L v -rL.
stes
- h. A apr<=w.A.
A* c.4.4 y M
Wi-fhe.r f' b'*'J T' c h IW A.-- O p f a r r s i g bc lIP J b lI8-bNEJ, tocr wria) Alle t b r' fv h A.
kr.*<!*J co3I*C (AlI'y Inc bald.
~~
C6. ss tk Ies-pac r fe.s-1;ny p.eAsL Ser G << l. &af/ I1 h
<Uu.r:
%r k<<l<3 i.
ku<.t,.,
M JIv.ot/ kr ks.it n.rsm <.s pn:t.la i*r, W e 4;61*v.eeeared, Anttr:n:er;, i<
rLar me kut *F _ -tlu p.s klic.
vs*.se aMeered 4,.s Cen J C4 n.sy N-/
NtWM
? [ L
M.
N......_.__,,,,_
_,, e op..
Nd e, A. eb t*stle=**-f.
o.P
&llaat:
<<*s~As l*<
er9a115.9m +e k mu.4
- se+ 10 an. LI MLt.'s it<40 e.a k r, !x
- 6) %<. s. ss n o r
<
G., k u
-rhv -,La s <. g+r # k
-r%
ru. w o+
.WeA f.\\.sno-4+,s. t4%,p< 4<.tss i *.,
\\d ra usat of, sLa wAm a y c4 + paHk. wez-r, ko-r *r mn. r ler< La. p.snLi w a;ss;r,.:y,,
u e,
$1rI*3 i+df eblu<4 (eg 1 clat a r p s.,g f f,.
@ijke ta3 -o p ses.-r -ru. p,solic ts reves.r C it y I.s.I,4 ;g,g.e,,y,.y Kev. g.
F e.
% S
- Y Y M *',* q \\st N '\\+
- h,\\4 s.G Y *(lsy<<ej a -eL DUt.L.etsfps kw,
- c. s k.',
Q w;; L,f,
E,446;41,- of
- .fip A %,t luth valuf Q x k,og,,,g;
,,;g se my sk
-f ks.-t s tJ a, nss 9assr:es r.m 9.,,--- a w c y
.ru se u,,
3, r
bh.
+k vt.so x<.a s v u << es4.
wor g nve lvs.
- ) s,} wi[.,$ gw.y y,'j g se I f,fi/t 1 ThA r m'aj kT l,s.eka.
k4.- As of ec<
c.c
. p -r e e r i i c.c.w s o mey 4.
4g &g ie -th heads of s' si.o psps.tc r
~ a.-ap= - t g,A /r + 4 #
A.4, A.
p J IP la't
< eItI'-I he rs.
L, vc f k
.s.,
/'t/dL M
-re iu
+ - n.s r G.
lw1 ynI,Wul m&
m.s. p.
n,<l.u
- 4. u,h c, 2. 4 (.g, te op<4.tt.
a.
f (ca d. Csl/ ka.t k Icrv4,4 %
- t. torna.d4 Wk (1 W(f)li.rs c.a c r a m r-ela.~<..cc.stes L.
It < cca ~. 6 1 A l W J g
p 6 (es.,.J.
hsjI.'Je -r M k d %
1r/
liwws<.t. KA1
% 49 ok 4cvr s'-c, fr&ves.s. Tws. Ii na
?,%g). f, f.e)a-ry 5l~t e., s 1=
exq.e.s-e w
-se a ks y v < s s:m-ri, a. A. k< 4 et Spd8;L4.-r,m ofba(/
4.4.
re (s.**/ -
0A vs.; ol A.tl A oc f
.tr<:st o kleev w s~s4.
< tu' Isr' ovuess)4.-r are on e
% p.,4,AL, ea u u + ra d,
sf <- dJL.E'e -
A<r.<.,u.7 4<-
Liss tu
y
\\b)
,7 i
,\\,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. 50-416 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-417
)
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY JACKSONIANS UNITED FOR LIVABLE ENERGY POLICIES FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING ON AMENDMENT N0. 10 I.
INTRODUCTION Mr. Ken Lawrence, purportedly acting on behalf of Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policie, (" Petitioner"), has filed a " Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing"Il n connection with Amendment 10 to the Grand Gulf i
Nuclear Station Unit I license, which amendment was issued by the NRC Staff on September 23, 1983.
For the reasons discussed below, the JULEP petition fails to satisfy the requirements for a request for hearing in that it does not contain the requisite demonstration of Petitioner's interest in this licensing action and, in addition, fails to identify specific aspects which may appropriately be considered in the proceeding.
Accordingly, the present petition shou. d be denied.
l 1/
Letter to Secretary of the Comission from " Ken Lawrence for JULEP,"
dated November 17, 1983 (" JULEP Petition" or " Petition").
i i
?$/230on48~ H @
4.z.]
f
. e,.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
Factual and Procedural Background On June 14, 1983, June 23, 1983 and August 1, 1983 Mississippi Power & Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (" Licensees") applied for changes in the Technical Specifications for Grand Gulf, Unit 1 and one time exceptions to some Technical Specifications for relief needed to start the plant.2/
Revisions to 10 CFR 9 50.92 having become effective on May 6, 1983, the issuance of notice of Licensees' amendment request and of opportunity for hearing on the request is governed by new regulatory procedures.
Because of exigent circumstances associated with the date this cendment was needed by Licensees, there was no time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consider-ation of Issuance of Amendment and. Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing.
Since failure to act on the amendment request in a timely way would have resulted in 2/
The changes to the Technical Specifications involve the following sections:
(a) Tables 3.3.3-1 and 4.3.3.1-1, Bases Figure 3/4 3-1:
redefines Operability range for High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) until first refueling outage due to water level instrumentation inaccuracies at low pressure; and (b) Table 3.6.4.1:
design change to prevent automatic. tripping of RHR jockey pumps, needed to prevent potential damage from waterhammer. The one time exceptions to some Technical Specifications needed to facilitate restart involve the following sections:
(c) 4.4.1.2.b, 4.4.2.2.1.b and Table 3.3.3-1:. provisions of Specification 4.0.4 suspended to allow plant' to attain operating conditions necessary for ADS ~ Trip System surveillance testing; and (d) 4.1.3.1.4.a:
provisions of Specifica-tion 4.0.4 suspended to allow plant to attain operating conditions necessary for Scram Discharge Volume surveillance testing.
l
4.
delaying startup of the plant, a shorter coment period (less than 30 days) was offered. A press release seeking public comment as to the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination was used, and the State was consulted by telephone.
The press release was published as a notice in four local newspapers on or about September 1, 1983, with a cut-off date of September 9 for comments.3_/
Under its regulations, the Comission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
On September 23, 1983, the Staff made its final determination that the requests for amendment identified in the public notice do not involve a significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, the Staff issued the requested changes as Amendment No. 10 to the Grand Gulf Unit 1 license, effective September 23, 1983, without first offering an opportunity for a public hearing.
In accordance with the procedures provided by 10 CFR 6 50.92 and as a result of the Staff's review of the amendment application and supporting information, a notice of issuance of Amendment No. 10 was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1983.
That notice included:
(1) a description of the license amendment; (2) a notice of the final determination that no significant hazards consideration is 3/
Mr. Lawrence telephoned the NRC Staff on September 6, 1983, with comments on the proposed action.
His comments were considered and discussed in the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report dated September 23, 1983.
?
involved; (3) a statement of the reasons for the final no significant hazards consideration determination; and (4) notice of the manner in which interested persons may request a hearing.
On November 17, 1983, the present petition was timely filed by Petitioner.
8.
JULEP's Request for Hearing The JULEP Petition demands that a full adjudicatory hearing be held on Amendment No. 10.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff believes the JULEP Petition fails to meet the standards of 10 CFR 5 2.714 for petitions to intervene, and does not demonstrate that discretionary intervention is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.
C.
Requirements for Requests for Hearing Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 6 2239(a),
provides that:
In any proceeding under [the] Act, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
Section 2.714(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice also provides that
"[a]ny person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene." Thus the pertinent inquiry, whether the petitioner's request is considered under.Section 189a of the Act or 10 CFR 5 2.714(a) of the regulations, is whether the petitioner'has alleged.an interest-which may be affected by the license amendment proceeding. Where the requisite interest is shown, intervention may be granted as a matter of i
right. Absent a demonstration of the requisite interest, intervention may be granted in the Commission's discretion.
1.
Interest and Standing for Intervention as a Matter of Right in seeking to determine whether the requisite interest prescribed by both Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and Section 2.714 of the NRC's Rules of Practice is present, the Comission has held that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are controlling.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976).
Thus, there must be a showing (1) that the action being challenged could cause " injury-in-fact" to the person seeking to interveneb and (2) that such injury is arguably within the " zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act_/ or S
the National Environmental Policy Act.6_/
Id.
See also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972);
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970).
Tha Appeal Board has ruled that the geographical proximity of a petitioner's residence, standing alone, is sufficient to satisfy the interest requirements. Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979).
-4/
"Abaract concerns" or a " mere academic interest" in the matter which are not accompanied by some real impact on a petitioner will not confer standing. See In the Matter of Ten Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Exports to EURATOM Member Nations, CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977); Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, supra at 613.
.Rather the asserted harm must.have some particular effect on_a petitio'ner, Ten Applications, CL1-77-24, supra, and ' petitioner.
a must have some direct stake in the outcome of the proceeding.
See Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al.
(Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).
[
5/
42 U.S.C. 6 2239 et seq.
6/
42 U.S.C. 6 4321 et seq.
=
Though no firm outer boundary for this geographic zone of interest has
' been determined, distances of up to 50 miles have been accepted by the Appeal Board as conferring standing upon particular petitioners.
- See, e.g._, Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 at n. 4 (1977); Cf. Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,190,193, reconsideration denied, ALAB-110, 6 AEC 247, aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973).
An organization may gain standing to intervene based on injury to itself or through members of the organization who have interests which may be affected by the outcomo of the proceeding.
Edlow International Company, CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 572-74 (1976); Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976).
If the organization seeks standing on its own behalf, it must establish that it will be injured ard that the injury is not a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.
Ten Applict.tions, CLI-77-24, supra, at 531.
When an organization claims that its s canding is based on the interests of its members, the organization must identify at least one specific individual member (by name and address) whose interests may be affected and'give some concrete indication that such member has authorized the organization to represent his interests in the proceeding.
Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating i
Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393-97 (1979); Public Service
Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-136, 6 AEC 487, 488-89 (1973); Duquesne Light Company, et al.
(Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1), ALA8-109, 6 AEC 243, 244 at
- n. 2 (1973). Absent express authorization, groups may not represent other than their own members, and individuals may not assert the interests of other persons. Watts Bar, supra, at 1418.
2.
Requirements for Discretionary Intervention Intervention may also be granted "as a matter of discretion according to specific criteria" to some petitioners who are not entitled to intervention as a matter of right. Portland General Electric Company et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976).
In pebble Springs the Commission delineated these specific criteria as:
(a) Weighing in favor of allowing intervention -
(1) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
(b) Weighing against allowing intervention -
(4)
The availability of other means whereby petitioner's interest will be protected.
(5) The extent to which petitioner.'s interest will ';e represente'd by existing parties.
(6)
The extent to which petitioner's participatir.n will inappropriately broaden or delay the proceeding.
4 NRC at 616.
c
=-
~
The Commission also cautioned in Pebble Springs that the exercise of discretion should be " based on an assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."
Id.
Discretionary intervention should be afforded more readily:
"where petitioners show significant ability to contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which will not otherwise be properly raised or presented, set forth these matters with suitable specificity to allow evaluation, and demonstrate their importance and immediacy, justifying the time necessary to consider them."
4 NRC at 617.
The burden of demonstrating that discretionary intervention is appropriate in a given case lies with the petitioner.
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.
(Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978).
D.
Evaluation of the JULEP Petition The present JULEP Petition fails to satisfy the requiret.ents for intervention in that it does not contain the requisite demonstration of JULEP's interest in this licensing action nor does it adequately set forth the aspects which it seeks to litigate. JULEP has not shown that it is entitled to intervention either as a matter of right or as a matter of the Commission's discretion.
1.
The Present JULEP Petition Does Not Adequately Support Intervention as of Right a.
Interest and Standing Contrary to the mandate of % 2.714, the JULEP Petition fails to set forth either its interest in the proceeding or how that interest may be' af'fected by the results of the proceeding.
Instead, the JULEP Petition states only that " Petitioner has resided in Mississippi for 12 years, and has been a researcher and critic of nuclear power generation since before
_9 that time." Presumably, the " Petitioner" referred to is Mr. Lawrence himself. JULEP Petition at 1.
However, the JULEP Petition purports to present the opposition of JULEP as an organization ("This petition continues opposition of petitioner Ken Lawrence on behalf of Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policies FJiiLEP]" (Id.)), and the JULEP Petition is signed " Ken Lawrence for JULEP" (Id. at 2). The Petition does not assert whether JULEP's standing is based on the interests of JULEP as an In organization, or on the interests of one or race of JULEP's members.
either case, the JULEP Petition fails to meet the standards of 10 CFR 9 2.714 for petitions to intervene.
Under 10 CFR Q 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene must " set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding."
In marked contrast to this requirement, the JULEP Petition does not even identify in the most general manner the purpose or interests of its organization.
The Petition asserts only that " JULEP has been concerned about Grand Gulf,throughout its existence"(JULEP Petition at 1).
The remainder of the Petition is devoted to a listing of four " grounds" for opposition to Amendment 10, none of which grounds asserts either an interest of Petitioner or how any such interest might be affected by the outcome of the requested proceeding.
JULEP has not attempted to demonstra:e that it has standing based on any injury to itself as an organization. Nor is it apparent from the Petition that JULEP has any basis for a claim that it will suffer cognizable injury as an organization because the requested amendment
/
has been granted.
Accordingly, JULEP must rely for its standing on the 1
_m
standing of at least one of its individual members.
Marble Hill, ALAB-322, supra. The Petition also fails to satisfy this requirement, although it appears possible that the Petition could be amended to cure this defect.
See discussion at pages 11-12, infra.
Aside from Mr. Lawrence's assertion that he himself has resided in Mississippi for twelve years, the JULEP Petition does not identify any members who reside in the vicinity of Grand Gulf, Unit 1 and does not demonstrate specifically their geographical proximity to the facility as required by Commission precedent.
Indeed, the JULEP Petition does no more than imply that Mr. Lawrence is in fact a member of JULEP, although the Staff has no reason to believe that that inference is incorrect.E While the return address on the JULEP Petition is a post office box in Jackson, Mississippi, it is not clear whether Mr. Lawrence resides in Jack on, whether he simply maintains a post office box there, or whether the address provided is that of JULEP.
If Mr. Lawrence does reside in Jack.on, that fact, if established, would be enough to establish his geographic proximity to the plant, which is located approximately 40 miles from Jackson.
Nevertheless, without an explicit identification of a member who possesses standing on the basis of his or her geographical proximity to Grand Gulf, Unit 1, the present Petition remains deficient.
7/
Mr. Lawrence does not purport to be an officer, director or employee of JULEP.
His authority to submit the JULEP Petition
~
on behalf of JULEP has not been established, as it should be, by affidavit of an officer or director of JULEP.
Conversely, an organization must explicitly state that it is authorized by its member or members to act on their behalf in a proceeding, see Allens Creek, ALAB-535, supra; in this case, the Staff views the fact that Mr. Lawrence himself has written the Petition to constitute Mr. Lawrence's authorization to JULEP.
.. - ~
However, Petitioner's failure to adequately identify at least one member who lives near the plant does not of itself defeat the grant of intervenor, status. Under 10 CFR $ 2.714(a)(3), a petition for leave to intervene may be amended, without prior approval of the presiding officer, at any time up to fifteen days prior to a special prehearing conference held pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715a or, if no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen days before the first prehearing conferehce.
The Appeal Board has stated that petitions that suffer from inarticulate draf tsmanship or procedural or pleading defects may be amended if they contain curable defects. North Anna, ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973).
See Wisconsin Public Service Corp. (Kewaunee Nuclear Plant), L8P-78-24, 8 NRC 78, 82 (1978). Yet a totally defective pleading may not be justified on the basis that is was prepared without the assistance of counsel. Allens Creek, ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 546 (1980).
Since Section 2.714(a)(3) does not limit the reasons for amendment, and assuming the defect is curable, JULEP could amend its petition to include a member affidavit which would satisfy the standing requirement.
See e.g., Enrico Fermi, LBP-79-1, 9 NRC 73, 77 (1979).
As presently constituted, however, the petition fails to demonstrate the requisite standing for intervention as a matter of right, b.
Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter of an Operating License Proceeding In addition to satisfying the standing and interest requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714, a petitioner must "also set forth with particularity...
the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding l
1
. = ~ ~ -
o
' s as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene." J10 CFR 6 '2./14(a)(2).8/
Petitioner sets forth four "[g] rounds for opposition to Amenbynt 10."E/
Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of these grounds has any relationship to the changes effected by Amendment 10 and thus would be appropriate for consideration in a procee, ding on this amendment.
Since JULEP has failed to identify aspects which are within the. scope of a proceeding on an amendment to an operating license, it ha~ssfailed to s
satisf.y the aspects requirement of 10 CFR 6 2.714.
~8/
An " aspect" is generally considered to bc broader than a "contcation," but narrower than a general reference to the NRC's operating statutes. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plants, Units I and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
=
9/
The four grounds listed nn page 2 of the JULEP Petition are:
(1) There was no reason for the NRC staff's rush to grant this amendment.
The reason offered, that the.NRC staff had failed to make a timely evaluation of the amendment on behalf of the public interest, might be grounds for disciplining or firing staff members, but it cannot be legitimate grounds for failing to protect the public interest fully, including the public's
- right to a hearing.
(2) Petitioner on behalf of JULEP disagrees with NRC staff's definition of "significant risk", and wishes to have a public airing of that issue, including questions raised by the Mississippi State Department of Helath which'the St3te admits it does not have the resources to research.
(3)
Issues that might not involve "significant riik'" f h the hands of more competent licensees may be a grave danger in the hands of incompetent management.
NRC staff and public critics both have shown MP&L management to be among the least 'tualified anywhere to operate a nuclear facility safely.
(4) Grand Gulf has been struck by a tornado which damaged its containment ~ dome severely.
It recently suffered fire damage.
Its licensee has been found negligent and heavily fined for violating simple security procedures.
There is no reason to expect it to obey requirements,.and therefore no regulation or specification should be relaxed.
On the contrary, strict.
observance and vigilant oversight are required.
"s
==~ 5.
__ _ y _
13 -
{,
2 2.
The JULEP Petition Does Not Support Discretionary Intevention The JULEP Petition has not provided sufficient information to carry s
JULEP's burden of demonstrating that discretionary intervention would be appropriate here. The bare statements that " petitioner" [Mr. Lawrence?]
has been " researching" the Grand Gulf facility and has held public debates with officials of Grand Gulf's management, and has testified before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (JULEP Petition at
- 1) lacks the degree of particularization which would permit a judgment to be drawn one way or the other as to whether JULEP's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
The JULEP Petition contains no information which would permit an evaluation of the i
various criteria delineated in Pebble Springs, supra.
The burden of demonstrating that discretionary intervention is appropriate under the particular circumstances lies with the petitioner.
Sheffiel_d, ALAB-473, supra.
That burden has not been carried by JULEP here.
III.
CONCLUSION JULEP has failed to show that it meets the applicable requirements for intervention either as a matter of right or as a matter of the Commission's discretion. Accordingly, the JULEP Petition should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, i
Mary E. Lagner j
Counsel
'or NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of December, 1983 t
% m egae -
e***
ech gap wp eto ee
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. 50-416 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-417
)
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY JACKSONIANS UNITED FOR LIVABLE ENERGY POLICIES FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING ON AMENDMENT N0. 10" 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, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 7th day of December,1983:
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Conner and Wetterhahn, P.C.
Board Panel (4 copies) 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Ken Lawrence
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Jacksonians United for Livable Appeal Board Panel Energy Policies U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 3568 Washington, DC 20555 Jackson, Mississippi 39207
- Docketing & Service Section Robert B. McGehee Office of the Secretary Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 925 Electric Building Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 651-
.lackson, Mississippi 39201
~
. Mississippi Power & Light Company ATTN: Mr.J.P. McGaughy, Jr.
Assistant Vice President, Nuclear Production P.O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 ll%f.6 Mary E.A agner/
i CounselNor NRC Staff L
e.
,. i t,
00tKETE-n.i '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 DtC 12 A11:0' MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
(Docket No. 50-415 OLA) h[chC,;[- kiM'?d,
s BRANCH
[ASL5? No. 50-497-00 LA:
n
- ....:,uc" ESTABLISHMENT OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Pursuant to celegation by the Commission cated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 F.R. 28710 (1972), and Sect-ons 2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717 and 2.721 of the Commission's Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety ano Licensing Board is being established in the following proceeding to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and/or requests for hearing ano to preside over the proceeding in the event that a hearing is ordered.
MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-13
'This Board is being established pursuant to a notice published by the Commissier en Octocer 25, 1983, in the Federal Register (aE FR 39608 ff).ent-itled, " Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility. Operatin~g
. License and Final. Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for nearing (Exigent or Emergency Circumstances)."
This Amendment grants enanges to the Technical Specifications and one-time exceptions to scme Tecnnical Soecificatiens for relief needed to restart t.e plant.
&.$.Zlb0Y f
A-3
T p
i -
%v
\\
r
\\
- s.
- D The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:
t Herbert Grossman, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarc Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=.ission Washington, D.C.
20555 D
Dr. James H. Carpenter
(
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor,ission p
Washington, D.C.
20555 t
g Dr. Peter A. Morris J
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555
- ),
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
i Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing t
)
Board Panel Issued at Bethesda, Maryland, this 8th day of December, 1983.
t l
i l
I s.
s 3
July 18, 1984
[
i-MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
James Lieberman, Director and Chief Counsel Regional Operations and Enforcement Division Office of the Executive Legal Director SUSJECT:
DRAFT 2.206 DECISION ON GRAND GULF Attached for your use is a rough cut at a Director's decision regarding the pending 2.206 Petition filed by JULEP. We have organized a basic framework for responding to the Petition and inserted discussion and appropriate back-ground information as we have been able.
This decision should be issued prior to authorization of a full power license for this facility, which I understand is set for Comission consideration at the end of July. We are prepared to assist you in any way to ensure that this decision is issued in a timely manner.
I would also suggest that you obtain the assistance of Region II as appropriate on a number of the issues raised in the Petition.
The region has been previously provided with copies of the Petition.
Please contact Susan Chidakel of my staff (X27149) if you require additional assistance to ensure prompt completion of this action.
/5 James Lieberman, Director Regional Operations and Enforcement Division Office of the Executive Legal Director
Attachment:
as stated s Wud on cc:
J. P. O'Reilly, RII D. Eisenhut, NRR DELD rdg E. Adensam, NRR Burns chron D.-Houston, NRR Lieberman info J. Axelrad, \\E Chidakel info LC/RH/KC info ROED rdg
-h ROED sub Central file Brad Jcnes info 0FC :0 ELD ' -
NAME : Bur DATE :7/18/84 S cf9-73E_69dk.
to ga
s.
DD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harold R. Denton, Director In the Matter of
)
i Docket No. 50-416 HISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER CFR 2.206 INTRODUCTION By Petition dated April 10, 1984, Cynthia Stewart, on behalf of Jacksonians United for Liveable Energy Policies (hereinafter referred to as JULEP or the Petitioner), requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issue an order to Mississippi Power and Light Company (hereinafter referred to as HP&L) to show cause why the license for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, should not be revoked and a stay of operation should not be issued. The Petitioner also requested that the operating license be modified to remove responsible management personnel and ensure implementation and verification of corrective actiuns associated with technical specification discrepancies.
As grounds for granting this relief, the Petitioner asserts the following:
(1) the technical specifications issued for the plant were, andcontinuetobe, erroneous;(2)operatorqualificationswerefalsified; (3) the drywell cooling system was inadequately designed and constructed; (4)theelectricpowersystemisinadequate;(5)MP&Lhadnoprevious
_2 nuclear experience and until recently none of the staff had operated a commercial reactor;'and (6) given the history of problems and censistent poor management performance of the licensee, NRC will be unable to assure compliance 'by the licensee with NRC requirements. On fiay 30, 1984, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) and section 182 of the Atcmic Energy Act, the licensee was requested to respond to the petition.
On July 5,1984, the licensee filed its response. After considering the request and for reasons set forth below, I have concluded that Petitioner's request should be denied.
DISCUSSION Discrepancies in Technical Specifications and Surveillance procedures A brief historical review is helpful at this point to place the Petitioner's assertions in proper perspective.
On June 16,1982, a low power license was issued for the Grand Gulf t;uclear Station, Unit 1.
Inspections by Region II with regard to compliance of surveillance pro-cedures with the Technical Specifications were perforrr.ed from June 16, 1982, to October 8, 1982, and discrepancies in the surveillance pro-cedures and Technical Specifications were identified.
T. Insert Inspection ReportReferences].
Based on these inspections a Confirmation of Action letter was issued on October 20, 1982, to restrict the next criticality (the plant was then shut down for other reasons) until the identified discrepancies were resolved. At the conclusion of this phase of the licensee's review, in late August 1983, another inspection was held to discuss the reasons for the discrepancies and to determine whether changes
required for operation through the first fuel cycle had been submitted.
rInsert inspection report reference). The plant returned to criticality on September 25, 1983, and low power tests wers. conducted until November 8,1983.
The plant was shut. down af ter testing while undertaking an extensive licensed operator recertification program, during which' time the licensee and the staff again reviewed the Technical Specifications as issued through Amendment No. 12 to the Operating License.
Further problem areas were identified, resulting in a complete, high-quality review of the Technical Specifications by the licensee on March 2, 1984.
As a result of these actions, Technical Specif-ication problem areas were identified by the 11censee. Consequently, the staff determir.ed that changes to the Technical Specifications needed to be made. The staff performed a safety evaluation in order to determine which changes were required for 5% power operation. If On April 18, 1984, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued an Order 1/
The staff determined that operation at a power level of up to 5% power did not require all problems with the Technical Specifications to be resolved at this time.
i i
i L
l n ;
Restricting Conditions for Operation, effective immediately, which provided:
MP&L shall not operate the Grand Gulf plant under the
,3' terms, of License No..NPF-13 unless such operation is in conformance with the revised Technical Specifications appended to this Order'and.MPL, prior to entry into mode 2 r certifies to the Regional Administrator, Region II,
'7' that MP&L's procedures have been modified and training conducted to reflect the revised Technical Specifications.
(49 Fed. Reg. 17832,17833 ( April 25,1984).
[NRR:
Fill in other pertinent information re the resolutian of Tech Spec issue prior to issuing of a high-power '.icense.)
Falsification of Operator Qualifications Discrepancies in the documentation of operator training were identified during a special training inspection conducted in January 1983 and a special safety inspection conducted by Region II during August and September, 1983.
[ Insert inspection report references 3 An evaluation of these inspections by the Region II staff concluded that these discrepancies were not limited to documentation errors. At Region II's request, an investigation was conducted by the Office of Investigations (01) from October 18, 1983 through February 10, 1984.
On the basis of the 01 investigation, the staff has determined that three sets of applications for reactor operating and senior reactor operating licenses, submitted on September 3,1981, March 30,1982, and May 14, 1982, contained material false f
statements.
Forty-six applications submitted for 33 applicants contained t
I
[
i w.'
false information or unsupported descriptions of training allegedly completed by the applicants. 2/ As a result, civil pe~nalties have been j
proposci. [ Fill in further information on enforcement action when Com-missionapp'rovcs'proposedaction].
i i
The individual operators who signed the applications indicated in 2/
interviews during the investigation that the applications were prepared by a contractor employee and that they were not given an opportunity to review the completed applications before the applications were submitted. The submittal of false information was not found to have been made by MP&L officials with the intent to mislead the NRC.
4 To ensure that the individuals granted licenses had the requisite
~
qualifications to retain ~ their licenses, Region 11 conducted licensed operator recertification and walk-through examinations in February 1984 after each f
licensed operator had undergone an individual examination on each of 68 systems listed on the Grand Gulf licensed operator qualification card. These i
examinations were monitored by MP&L, representatives of two other utilities, the Nuclear Steam Supply System vendor, and the NRC. At the completion of this examination process, the records of the operators were reviewed by a Grand Gulf recertification board consisting of representatives of plant management. The board examined operator training records and the results of the examinations, and conducted additional oral examinations as necessary. Out of 27 individuals examined by the board, one was found to be totally unqualified and removed from licensed duties.
Three
f lo were found to need additional training and were subsequently retrained.
i The NRC conducted an independent recertification examination of these 26 individuals. The results of the independent flR,C recertification examination were that 23 of the 26 operators passed. The remaining three who failed have been removed from licensed duties. These actions provide reasonable assurance that operators presently at the controls of the facility have met flRC requirements for training and obtaining a license.
j Lack of Experience of fiP&L Staff (flRR:
Petitioner seems to raise lack of experience issue regarding operator qualification similar to Diablo Canyon (CLI-84-5).
Position on qualification should be given.
Petitioner appears to raise inexperience of f4P&L as an operator of nuclear facil-ities..Statepositiononthisissue).
1 Design and Construction of the Drywell Cooling System Petitioner alleges that the drywell cooling system was inadequately designed and constructed.
[liRR:
Fill in pertinent information re resolution ofthisissue.]
r t Adequacy of the Electric Power System On August 12,.1983, the main crankshaft on one of the three emergency diesel generators at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, which were manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., (TDI), broke during a load test. During the course of the evaluation of the failure, infor-mation related to the operating history of TDI engines was identified which called into question the reliability of all TDI diesels, including the TDI diesel generators installed at the Grand Gulf facility.
Subsequently, NRC staff conducted an evaluation of the effect of failure of TDI diesel generators at Grand Gulf at 5% power operation as currently authorized by the license. :The staff concluded that the total failure of the Delaval diesels at Grand Gulf would not significantly increase the risk of low power operation and that the risk of low power operation is acceptably small. Nevertheless, some very low probability environmental events are contributors to that risk, and that risk is reduced if the reliability of the TDI diesel generator is enhanced.
Consequently, the staff ~ determined that it would be appropriate to have increased assurance as to reliable onsite power.
Foreover, for full-power operation, a high degreee of reliability is required for the diesel generators. The staff found that the most appropriate method to obtain information about the specific conditions of the diesel generators at Grand Gulf would be to disassemble and inspect the diesel generator which had been operating the longest.
In view of these findings, the Director of NRR issued an Order Requiring Diesel General Inspection, effective immediately, on May 22, 1984, which provided that the Division 1 TDI diesel generator
4 o
8-O be disassembled for inspection, all defective parts be replaced prior to declaring the engine operable, and that preoperational testing be per-formed on the inspected engine prior to declaring it operable. 49 Fed.
Reg. 22582'(fiay 30, 1984).
[NRR:
Fill in other pertinent information rjt the resolution of electric power system adequacy prior to issuing of i
a full power license: e.g., results of tear down inspection required by the order, further technical reviews, reference l
toanypertinentSER].
Assurance that Licensee Will fleet NRC Requirements The petitioner argues that, in view of the licensee's past difficulties in raeeting NRC requirements and the consistent poor performance of the licensee's management, NRC can have no assurance that tFe licensee will operate the facility competently in the future.
In support of this charge, the petitioner cites the licensee's failures to meet regulations in the case I
of employee training, the discrepancies between the physical plant and L
technical specifications, and the fact that in the NRC's annual Systematic Assessment of Licensee performance (SAlp) reviews MP&L management has con-sistently scored poorly.
i
[NRR:
Fill in pertinent information re resolution of this issue:
hasmanagementchanged?)
l
---v----,+-
-wy,,, -,, -.,,,,
.g.
CONCLUSION The Petitioner bases its request for relief upon past difficulties with the Grand Gulf facility. As discussed above, NRC has taken actions which have resolved these difficulties. We believe that the actions taken i
with regard to these problems are sufficient to provide assurance of the safe operation of the plant. Therefore, Petitioner's request for revocation of the license for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, is denied. As the Commission has taken actions to resolve the problems with the diesel generators, technical specification _. discrepancies, and f alsification of operating quali-fications and because management has changed, Petitioner's requests to replace management and ensure implementation and verification of corrective actions for identified problems at Grand Gulf have been essentially satisfied. How-ever, institution of further proceedings to implement these actions is unneces-sa ry. A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Com-mission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's regu-lations.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Ibryland this day of July 1984.
1 I
.