ML20151K729
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:" Mbbe Poe C.%t? 4(
- [q%
UNITED STATES l E s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I $,Q~ pl e, E 1 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l * :.?, I l l MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director I Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
"SH0LLY" STATISTICS l Enclosed is the update of the Sholly statistics covering the period May 6, 1983 through February 27, 1985. No a'dditional comments nor reliuests for hearings were received. 1 The next monthly FRN is scheduled for publication on March 27, 1985, after l which the statistics will be updated. >E Hu L. Thompson irector Div sion of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure: NRR Division Directors NRR Deputy Directors DL Assistant Directors ~ ~ DL Branch Chiefs DL Licensing Assistants OELD Lars Solander, PRAB CONTACT: Pat Kreutzer X29516 l l l $f03270'73 XA %f L
t l ~ I I "SHOLLY" STATISTICS May 6,1983 Feb. 27,1985 Monthly FRN I 'ividual FRN Individual FRN U *I Proposed NSilC posed NSHC SHC NUMBER 1597 z76 27 1900 Period for public comment: 30 days 1597 259 27 1883 Less than 30 days: Short FRN 17 17 Press release 9 2 Grand Gulf 8 TMI-1 1 Oyster Creek 1 Susquehanna 0 143/ Public consnents received 1 LaSalle-2 1 WNP-2 2 TMI-l 4 1 Pilgrim 152/ Requests for hearing 1 Grand Gulf Sa 1 2 Zion 1/2 6: Turkey Pt. 3/4 Amendments issued - Total ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1l75 (1) with 30 days notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1109 (2) less than 30 days or no notice ---------------------------------------------------___ 55 (3) Hearing requaded but final NSHC determination made (50.91(a)(4)) ------------------- 10E (4) Proposed NSliC; hearing requested. Ilearing completed and amendment issued. No final NSHC determination was made because hearing was com amendment was needed -------------------------------------- pleted before Iy t I Backlog: (applications received which have not been noticed, either in monthly FRN or individually through February 27, 1985 ): NUMBER,321 (Includes items which have been prepared and approved for publication in March monthly, iteas which are in concurrence, and items for which additional information is needed from the licensee. FOOTNOTES: See pages 2 and 3. - =
l s . FOOTNOTES FOR "SHOLLY" STATISTICS 1/ Comments Grand Gulf - 2 comments, one from State, one from a member of the public. TMI-1 - 7 comments received as result of initial noticing action, 1 additional comment received as a result of Notice of Additional Opportunity published on August 25, 1983. Susquehanna - I connent received from a member of the public. Oyster Creek - I comment received from State. WNP-2 - 1 comment received from a member of the public. 4 LaSalle 2 - I comment received from local government. j 2/ Requests for hearing e TMI Steam generator repair - 2 requests for hearing received. Prehearing conference held. By a Memorandum and Order dated June 1,1984, Board dis-missed 9 of 11 contentions. Hearing concluded July 18, 1984. Staff's proposed findings submitted August 20, 1984. Board issued Decision on October 31, 1984. Salem Integrated leak rate - 1 request for hearing received from State of Delaware. On January 20, 1984, State filed a motion to withdraw which was granted by Board on January 25, 1984. Turkey Pt. 3/4 - (a) Proposed operational limits for current and future reloads - 2 requests for hearing (2 units). Prehearing conference held - February 28, 1984. Discovery in process. (b) Spent Fuel Storage Expan-sion - 2 requests for hearing (2 units). (c) Enriched fuel storage - 2 requests for hearing (2 units). Nuclear Responsibility Inc. and Joette Lorian petitioners in all three issues. Pilgrim - Single loop operation - 1 request for hearing. Proceeding dismissed January 26, 1984 based on settlement. Grand Gulf - Amendment No.10 redefined HPCS operation and resulted in a calculated increase in peak clad temperature. One hearing request received. Prehearing conference held February 29, 1984. ASLB issued decision on April 23, 1984 admitting two contentions for discovery. On September 24, 1984, ASLB issued Memorandum and Order Terminating Proceeding. i l . ~.
i 2_/ Requests for hearing (continued) Trojan - Spent fuel pool expansion - 2 requests for hearing, 1;from State and 1 from Coalition for Safe Power. Both admitted as parties to proceeding. Prehe'aring conference h' eld, two contentions accepted. Coalition withdrew from proceeding. Hearing held October 10, 1984. Initial Decision issued by Board on November 28, 1984. Zion 1/2 - Containment leak testing - 2 requests for hearing (2 units) from Citizens Against Huclear Power. Licensee subsequently withdrew application. 3_/ Amendments Issued, Item (3) TMI-l hot testing, 1 amendment Salem 1 integrated leak testing, 1 amendment . Turkey Pt. 3/4 operationa.1 limits for current / future reloads, 2 amendments TMI-1 hot functional testing of SG, 1 amendment Trojan spent fuel pool, 1 amendment Turkey Pt. 3/4 SFP storage expansion, 4 amendments 4] Amendments Issued, Item (4) TMI-l steam generator tube repairs and return to operation, 1 amendment. Pursuant to the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated October 31, 1984, the Commission completed action on GPU's May 9, l 1983 application by the issuance of an amendment to the license permitting the return of the steam generators to operation. The hearing having been completed, the matter of a Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration related to this amendment was considered moot and no such determination was required or made.
c /)Rg-;t POR .e> 4 6' Dto-J&~ '[, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ~ FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT lhh s,- CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY INC.,) jg' ,.3. ;, AND JOETTE LORION ) ) lY$7 Appellants ) v. ) [ ) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ) Case No. 84-5570 ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) ) AND FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ) ) Appellees. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Hereby motion that I have served a copy of the foregoing Brief for the Appellants, by first class mail, postage prepaid, on each of the following Counsel, this
- )flh day of January, 1985.
Harold F. Reis, Esquire John A. Bryson, Esquire Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Dick D. Snel, Esquire 1615 L. Street NW U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20036 Lands Division, Appellate Section Main Justice, Room 2339 Norman A. Coll, Esquire 9th and Pennsylvania Ave. NW Steel, Hector & davis Washington, D.C. 20530 4000 SE Financial Center Miami, F1. 33131-2398 William S. Jordan III, Of Counsel Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Micheal Blume, Esquire 1725 I Street I:W Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 b& bG ^
- q
.L Martin H. Hodder Attorney for Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc., and Joette Lorion 1131 NE 86 Street Miami, Fl. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Date : January 28, 1985. u 4d }
g~.. s e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Cases and Authorities iii Certificate Required by Rule 8(c) Vi STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1 REFERENCES TO PARTIES AND ISSUES 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4 Nature of the Case 4 The Background Problem 6 Statement of Facts 12 ARGUMENT 13 I. THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE FIRST LORION j CASE COMPELS THE CONC USION HERE THAT JURISDICTION j IS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. A. THE NO SIGNIFICANT SAFETY HAZARD DECLARATION IS AN EX-PARTE, INFORMAL AGENCY PROCEEDING THAT CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. 13 B. DISPOSITION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF LORION WILL NOT ALTER THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARD DECLARATIONS ARE REVIEWABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 16 C. THE "NECESSARY FIRST STEP" RATIONALE MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARD DECLARATIONS. 18 j D. THE DISTRICT COURT WAS REQUIRED TO TRANS-FER THIS CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1631. 18 E. IF INITIAL JURISDICTION IS FOUND IN THE COURTS OF APPEAL THE HOBB'S ACT 28 U.S.C. 2347 (b) (3) REQUIRES TRANSFER TO DISTRICT COURT FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTED FACTS. 19
<g i l II. THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ERRED IN l ITS DETERMINATION THAT ISSUANCE OF TIIESE LICENSE AMENDMENTS INVOLVES NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARD. l A. THE COMMISSION'S CONDUCT IIERE AND IN i OTHER LICENSE AMENDMENTS SINCE SHOLLY RULE ENACTMENT CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE l OF DISCRETION. 21 B. THE COMMISSION IIAS FAILED IN ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERLY INTERPRET TIIE INTENT OF CONGRESS 23 III. TIIE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR TIIE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IS INADEQUATE l AND FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES A SUPPLEMENT. 25 IV. THE SUBJECT LICENSE AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE VACATED, AND MANDATORY, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD ISSUE. 30 e l w r-m. c y-- ,,y p-o.
4 TABLE OF CASES-Lorion v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Directors Decision 21, 14 NRC 1078 (1981); 712 F.2d 1472 (1983), petitions for cert. granted March 26, 1984 and cases Nos. 83-703, 83-1031, consolidated oral argument and case submitted Oct. 29, 1984 Northern Indiana Public Service Company Bailly Generating Station Nuclear #4 7 NRC 429 (1978) aff'd sub nom. Porter County Iyaak Walton League V. NRC 606 F.2d 1364 (D.C. Cir 1979) Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S.
- 402, (1971)
Pierson v. United States, 428 F. Supp. 381 (D. Del 1977) U.S. v. John C. Greenberg Co. Inc., 702 F.2d 1362 (1983) American Beef Packers, Inc. v. ICC. 711 F. 2d ' 3 8 8, (1983) Camp v. Pitts 411 U.S. 143 Federal Register Notices: 48 F.R. 33076 33077 48 F.R. 45862, 45863 Statutes: Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act) l 28 U.S.C. 2341 et. seg. 1 28 U.S.C. 2347, (b) (1), 23 4 7 (b) ( 2), 2347 (b) (3) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEP^ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seg. j Administrative Procedure Act. ] l 5 U.S.C. 551 et. seq. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et. seg. 42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (2) (A) Public Law No. 97-415, 12, 45 Stat 2067, 1982 l 28 U.S.C. 1631 3 47 U.S.C. 407 )
4 Regulations 10 CFR Part 2 e 10 CFR Part 50.54 Miscellaneous: D.L. Basdekas, The Risk of a Meltdown, N. Y. Times, March 29, 1982 E. Edelson, Thermal Shock -- New Nuclear-Reactor Safety Hazard, Popular Science 55, June, 1983 NRC Staff Seeks Additional Information on Pressure Vessel Thermal Shock, Release No. 11-81-79 (NRC Office of Public Affairs, August 26, 1981) j NRC Staff Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock (November 1982) M. Toner, U.S. Reports Possible Flaws in N-Plants; Old Steel Vulnerable at Turkey Point, The Miami Herald, August 11, 1981 4 i l i 1 - - ~
3 yw
.=1
8 i 1 In the UNITED STATES COURT'OF APPEALS for the District of Columbia Circuit t Case No. 84-5570 Center for !?uclear Responsibility Inc., and Joette Lorion Appe: Lants v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and United States of America, j and Florida Power and Light Company, Appellees. 3 Appeal from-the U.S. District Court for the District of ~ Columbia Circuit. i e l BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS a i i e l Martin H. Hodder 1131 NE 86 Street' H Miami, Fl. 33138 (305).751-8706 f Attorney for Appellants
4 4 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the District of Columbia Circuit Case No. 84-5570 Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc., and Joette Lorion, Appellants, v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and United States of America, and Florida Power and Light Company, Appellces. Appeal from the U.S. District Court For the District of Columbia Circuit. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT ) STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES l 1) Whether a Nuclear Regulatory Commission determination l that issuance of a facility operating license amendment involves no significant safety hazards considerations, made through an informal, ex-parte agency process, constitutes a final order entered in a " proceeding" of the kind Congress j specified in Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act? ) ,3 'l l 1 ) 4
i (.E l-i i { i l l In the-UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the District of Columbia Circuit Case No. 84-5570 Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc., and Joette Lorion Appellants v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and United States of America, and Florida Power and Light Company, Appellees. Appeal from the U.S. District Court j for the District of Columbia Circuit i 1 BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS Martin H. Hodder 1 -1131 NE.86 Street. Miami, F1. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Attorney for Appellants m. 1 m-- ~-e "*E"-- " ' * ~ " ' " * "F"'""'T ~T# ~ ~ '^~#
O 4 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the District of Columbia Circuit Case No. 84-5570 Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc., and Joette Lorion, Appellants, v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ar.d United States of America, t.nd Florida Power and Light Company, Appellees. Appeal from the U.S. District Court For the nistrict of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR APPELLANT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1) Whether a Nuclear Regulatory Commission determination that issuance of a facility operating license amendment involves no significant safety hazards considerations, made through an informal, ex-parte agency process, constitutes a final ordet entered in a " proceeding" of the kind Congress j specified in Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act?
4 1 (a) Whether the District Court was required to transfer this case to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631, upon its detennuution that it lacked jurisdiction? (b) Whether if initial jurisdiction is found in the Court of Appeals, should the Court transfer this matter to the appropriate District Court pursuant to the llobb's Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341, 2347 (b) (3), for a determination of the l disputed facts? 2) Whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission erred in its determination that issuance of these license amendments l involves no significant hazards? l I (a) Whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's pattern l of conduct here and in the issuance of other license ) l l amendments subsequent to the enactment of the "Sholly Rule", relying upon declarations of " emergency" or "no significant j hazards", constitutes an abuse of agency discretion? (b) Whether the Nuclear gual ry Commission's interpretation of the intent of Congress in its enactment of the Amendment to Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act is I correct? (42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (2) (A), 1982-83, Authoriza". ion Public Law No. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (1983). 3) Whether the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants Units 3 and 4 is inadequate as a matter of a law due to new information q developments and circumstances concerning the probability of a serious nuclear accident at the Turkey Point Nuclear
- Plants, which have been discovered and should be addressed ;
1
e-in the Environmental Impact Statement,all relating to reactor pressure vessel embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock? 4) Whether the subject license amendments should be vacated, and whether a mandatory injunction should issue which prohibits defendants, United States Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission and United States of America, from licensing or authorizing issuance of any facility or operating license amendments in connection with the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, pressurized thermal shock and vessel flux t reduction programs, that involve reduction of originally established safety margins and changes to the Technical Specifications and other appendices to the operating licenses, until there have been concluded prior public hearings under Section 189 of-the Atomic Energy Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and other reviews required by Federal Law. REFERENCES TO PARTIES AND RULINGS On May 4, 1984, the Honorable John Garret Penn, United States District Court Judge, filed a ' memorandum" modifying i an earlier Order filed April 27, 1984. After motions for clarification, Judge Penn issued a new Order filed on June 12, 1 1984, constituting the order appealed from here. The Plaintiffs in the Court below are the Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc., and Joette Lorion. The Defendants below, and Appellees here, are the United States of America, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Florida Power and Light Company.
This case has not been previously before the Court. The only related case was Joette Lorion d/b/a Center for Nuclear Responsibility v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 712 F. 2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1983), mandate stayed (October 13,1983), Petitions for certiorari filed October 28, 1983, Case. No. 83-703 Sp. Ct. and December 21, 1983, Case No. 83-1031 Sp. Ct. Cases were consolidated March 26,1984, and Oral Argument heard and case submitted October 29, 1984. The Appellants relied upon the jurisdictional rule established by this Court in Lorion supra, in bringing this action in District Court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the Case This case is about "no significant hazard determinations", an informal agency " proceeding", ex-parte in nature, performed by the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). Because "no significant hazard determinations" are not reviewable within the agency,they constih2te " final agency action". "No significant hazard determinations" are the basis for the Commission's issuance of operating license amendments as permitted by the "Sholly Amendment" to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act. (P.L. No. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (2) (A).) This action challenges the conduct of the Commission as it uses the "Sholly' Amendment" to issue license amendments based upon "no significant hazard declarations", while denying members of the public any opportunity for a prior hearing. This is a case of first impression. -4_
o i Appellants allege the Commission is indulging in a course of conduct designed to evade its responsibility to provide the public hearings requested by members of the public as mandated by Congress. The complaint in this action sought mandatory, declaratory, and injunctive relief, declaring it to be a duty of the Commission to prepare a supplementary environmental impact statement (EIS) and conduct a prior public hearing before there could be issuance of amendments to facility operating licenses DPR-31'and DPR-41, as noticed for publication in the Federal Register on July 20, 1983, (48 F.R. 33076), and October 7, 1983, (48 F.R. 45862). 1 These amendments, and others not at issue here, are components of the Commissions' Vessel Flux Reduction Programs designed to cope incrementally with the serious problem of reactor pressure vessel embrittlement (Developed at greater length p.p. 6-11 infra ) while avoiding direct confronation in a public forum with the environmental aspects of the issue. 1. Appellants, who are Plaintiffs below, brought this action on November 29, 1983, because the Commission had announced its intention to issue license amendments on or about November 30, 1983, that would permit start-up and operation of the Turkey Point facility using new untested reactor core designs that exceed previously assigned safety margins and Technical Spec-ifications for the plant. The License Amendments were infact issued on December 9, 1983, (4 8 F.R. 33076) and December 23, 1983, (48 F.R. 45862) respectively. This action poses threshold jurisdictional questions, 1 as Appellants vainly thus far seek an effective forum in which to voice their concerns about the Reactor Pressure Vessel Embrittlement and Pressurized Thermal Shock problems at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Reactors. Succinctly, does jurisdiction to review an ex-parte, informal, yet final, agency action known as a " Declaration of No Significant Hazards" lie initially in the District Courts or the Courts of Appeal" ? If the Courts of Appeal have intitial jurisdiction, does the Hobb's Act 28 U.S.C. 2341, 2347 (b) (3), require this Court to transfer this matter to the appropriate District Court for a determination of the disputed facts. The Background Problem After events at Three Mile Island, during the decade of the 1980's, the licensing responsibilities of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commmission) shifted in emphasis from oversight of the construction and licensing of new nuclear power reactors to the management, through the issuance of operating license amendments, of a generatic of aging nuclear power reactors. Thereafter, a new and potentially catastrophic problem,that was never anticipated by the nuclear industry, arose. It is known as Reactor Pressure Vessel Embrittlement (RPV) coupled with Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS). There is a high increasing likelihood that someday soon, during a seemingly I minor malfunction at any of a dozen or more nuclear power plants around the United States, the steel vessel that O houses the radioactive core is going to crack like a piece of glass. The result will be a core meltdown, the most serious kind of nuclear f accident... r D.L. Basdekas, Reactor Safety Engineer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2 Basdekas, the reactor safety engineer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, continued in his article to warn that radiation is making the metal in some reactor pressure vessels (steel vessels that contain the radioactive core) 3 L brittle at certain nuclear power plants. Thus, water that is used to flood and cool the reactor core in an emergency could cause a meltdown, rather than preventing one. The cause of the vessel fracture and resultant l core melt, would be the abrupt change in the reactor's pressure and temperature, known as Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS), which could crack brittle vessels and allow emergency cooling water to escape. Although NRC and industry interest in reactor vessel embrittlement had heated up in 1977, and then languished unresolved, Basdekas's article in the New York Times and his letters to Congressman Morris K. Udall, Chairman, Sucommittee on Energy and the Environment, quickly focused NRC and industry attention on the problem. 2. D.L.
- Basdekas, "The Risk o f a Meltdown,"
N.Y. Times March 29, 1982) : see also"NRC Staff Seeks Additional Information on Pressure Vessel Thermal Shock," Release No. II-81-79 (NRC Office of Public Affairs, Reg. II, Aug. 26, 1981). 3. The problem has been described (footnote cont'd next page)...
F In a May 4, 1981, letter from Basdekas to Congressman Udall he urged, ...it is apparent to me that those PWR's (Pressurized Water Reactors) with high t copper alloy vessels or welds, that { have operated for 4 FPYE must be shut down until this matter is resolved in the technical arena. D.L. Basdekas, NRC Reactor Safety Engineer. 4 The NRC Commissioners held public meetings, Congressman f Edaward Markey of Massachusettes called Congressional hearings, f l ) and the NRC accelerated work on the supposed definitive study which was to become known as the " PTS Report" or NRC Staff Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock, Enclosure A, November 13, 1982. (The Enclosure is the main body of the report.) This report demonstrated that the Commission's own probabalistic analyses of the likelihhod of a pressurized thermal shock event coupled with reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, had a much higher probability of occurrance than the Commission's 3.(continued) and evaluated in articles prepared for general distribution. See E. Edelson, Thermal Shock-New Nuclear Reactor Safety Hazard ? Popular Science, Pg. 55, June, 1983, for a non-technical description and summary of reactions from the scientific community. 4. The Basdekas letter to Representative Morris K. Udall is reproduced in Policy Information Paper - SECY 286, Pressurized Thermal Shock, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Contmission, May 4, 1981. 1 5 own 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and Part 100 criteria would allow. Furthermore, after the" Rancho Seco" Transient occurred on' March 20, 1978, it became clear that pressurized water reactors were susceptible to abrupt changes in temperature 6 and pressure that could result in pressure vessel fracture. O 5. " Core Melt" - The core melt safety goal guideline states, 'The likelihood of a nuclear reactor accident that results in a large scale core melt should normally be less than one in 10,000 per year of reactor operation' (referencing 10 C.F.R. 100 setting guidelines on fission product releases and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 guidelines) This suggests that the core melt frequency ascribable to one sequence, for example PTS, compared'to other sequences should not exceed approximately 10 -5 per reactor year. "Because of the unusually large uncertainty in the risk estimation for PTS compared to other sequences, a value of less than 10-5 might well be assigned for a safety goal of PTS. We have not done this. This reader should keep in mind that the risk numbers of PTS given in the following discussion are highly uncertain." "We have no technical analysis of the course and conse-quences of a PTS sequence that involves RPV (reactor pressure ve ssel) failure." NRC Staff Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock Enclosure A, p. 8-9, PTS Report Section 8, Nov. 13, 1982. (The Enclosure is the main body of the report. ) 6. A reading of the NRC Policy Issue SECY-81-286, a chilling experience, gives an understanding of the concerns that Mr. Basdekas expresses about PTS. "At Rancho Seco...on March 20, 1978,... occurred...the most severe overcooling transient experienced by any PWR in the U.S." The Commission's Executive Director indicated that, "If the Rancho Seco Tran-sient occurred after 10 effective full power years of operation,..the probability of failure of the Rancho Seco vessel would have been very high." The Turkey Point plants are ~ now nearing that 10 year mark., ---.y-, ,yr. w
i~ Until mid-1981, the Commission's handling of the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock a . problem had been conducted on a generic basis. But, in August of 1981, the Commmission publically disclosed facts that required site-specific consideration of the problem. The i Commission's press releases revealed that the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Reactors have the most severely embrittled i reactor vessels in the United States. For that reason, Turkey Point is one of the nuclear power plants whose pressure vessel is likely to crack from thermal shock if a minor malfunction requires the use of t standard emergency cooling procedures. "A seemingly minor malfunction" would thus result in the most serious kind of i nuclear accident - a meltdown of the reactor core. 7 When as early as August 21, 1981, the NRC Staff expressed its own view that reactor pressure vessel embrittlement at the Turkey Point Plant was " approaching levels.of concern", i such that continued full power operation might pose a significant health and safety hazard,8 Joette Lorion I I 7. See NRC Staff Seeks Additional Information on Pressure Vessel Thermal shock, Release No. II-81-79, NRC Office of Public Affairs, Region II, August 26, 1981. See also c.g. M. Toner, "U.S. Reports Possible Flaws in N-Plants: Old Steel Vulnerable at Turkey Point Plant," Miami Herald, Sept. 8,1978,p.lA. 8. The worst case reactor pressure vessel embrittlement at Turkey Point is described by the Commission's Director of j Licensing as " approaching levels of concern." See letter Darrel Q. Eisenhutt, Director Division of Licesning, Office of Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Florida Power & Light Co., Robert E.
- Uhrig, V.P.,
August 21, 1981. (A Commission Show Cause letter under 10 C.F.R. 4' 50.54 (f)., -m-ww. nm ov~~- wwm*'
- =~n'
.~ one of the Appellants here, then acting individually, and under the name Center for Nuclear Responsibility, asked the Commission to address the problem and, if necessary, suspend the reactor's operating license. That request was promptly denied by a subordinate official in an informal and ex-parte, agency "proceeeding" known as a Director's Decision (Lorion
- v. NRC D.D.-81-21.14 NRC 1078 (1981.)
Ms. Lorion petitioned for review of the agency action in this Court (See Lorion
- v. NRC 712 f. 2d 1472 (1983) supra.)
On July 26, 1983, this Court dismissed that case for lack of subject mattar i jurisdiction and transferred it to the' Federal District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
- 1631, l
holding that: The jurisdictional bases of the petition for review are asserted in 28 U.S.C. 2342 (4) 1976 and 42 U.S.C. 2239 (b) 1976, which together give this Court authority j to review directly those final orders of the NRC enetered after formal agency proceedings. Because the Commission's decision in this case did not result from such a formal proceeding, however, we must dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Emphasis supplied.
Lorion v. NRC, i NRC 712 F. 2d 1472 D.C. Cir. (1983). Presently the holding of this Court in Lorion is under review by the United States Supreme Court. I (See reference to Lorion infra p. 4.) -11.
t l STATEMENT OF FACTS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decided to W f" issue and make immediately effective two sets of amendments to the facility operating licenses issued to Florida Power and Light Companym(FPL) for the operation of two nuclear generating units, Turkey Point-Plant Units 3 and 4, in - advance of any required hearing on the amendments. l Still wandering through a jurisdictional maze, and following the tacchings of this court in the first Lorion l Case (Lorion I-),. and confronted with still another final 1 agency action arising from an informal and ex-parte agency proceeeding, and being denied meaningful relief, the Appellapts brought suit in the District Court for the District l of Columbia Circuit seeking review of this agency action. Appellants sought a prior public hearing and injunctive, mandatory,and delaratory relief to restrain the United States of America and its agent the United States Nuclear Regulatory ~ Commission from authorizing contrary to. federal law the operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants Units 3 and 4 by the Florida Power and Light Company by issuing amendments to the facility operating license with revised Technical Specifications and reduced safety margins until the Defendant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, carried j out its non-discretionary duty to conduct public hearings for consideration of the proposed license amendments as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, l 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq., and other pertinent federal law. ' L
The Commission issued the amendments on December-9, 1983, and December 23, 1983, pursuant to notices in the Federal Register on July 20, 1983, (4 8. F.R. 33076,33077), and October 7, 1983, (48 F.R. 45862, 45863). The District Court dismissed Appellants complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction of . any of the issues raised by the Plaintiffs, who are Appellants' here. The District Court, confronted with this serious safety issue, however, failed to observe the Congressional mandate to transfer to the Court of Appeals, as provided at 28 U.S.C. 1631. ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE FIRST w LORION CASE COMPELS THE CONCLUSION HERE THAT JURISDICTION'IS'IN THE DISTRICT COURT. A. The No significant Safety Hazard Declaration Is An Ex-Parte, Informal Agency Procceeding That Constitutes Final Agency Action. i It is not the intention of Appellants to re-argue the rationLle of this Court as expressed in the Lorion case. Appellants support the decision and have relied upon it here. l Presently, it is the law of the Circuit. j l l There are marked similarities betwoon the Commi,ssion's " Director's Decisions" and "No Significant Hazard Determi-nations": t
- 1. They are each performed by the NPo Staff.
i 13- ,e--g--
- r. _ w, e
,~.my--.wr
---,,--~,..,-,.m.*-.,~--,e,-mt,-- ...,mm..--.-~.,---y--.-..--,--..-,,w.r...-,-4,, .-.m m m, -- ,e-,- -e.-+--.-
d 1 2. They are both informal agency " proceedings". -3. They are ex parte in nature. 4. No provision exists for further right of review within the agency, except in the case of Director's Decisions, which may be subject to sua sponte review by the full Commission under 10 C.F.R. 2. 2 0 6. '> 4 5. Both" proceedings" constitute " final agency action" i due to their non-reviewability. They are dissimilar in that Director's Decisions are responses to requests for enforcement action, and may be construed as a component of the Commission's prosecutorial or investigative function, while "no significant hazard l declarations" are the very lynchpin of the Commission's licensing function under Sec. 189 (a). In Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station Nuclear -4) 1 Northern Indiana") 7 NRC 429 (1978) aff'd sub nom. In Porter County Chapter Izaak Walton League 606 f. 2d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the Petitioners raised the argument that the NRC i Staff participated as a " party adversary" in the enforcement proceeding requested by the Petitioners, and claiming that it is fundamentally unfair and unlawful for the Staff to take i 9. An exception to the non-reviewability within the Commission on no significant safety hazard consideration determinations may be seen in the Commission's handling of Staff determinations concerning the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plants. Metropolitan Edison Co. Three Mile Island Nuclear Unit No. 1. (TMI 1) In that proceeding the Commission has issued an order that all Staff decisions on TMI be reviewed by the full Commission. Hence, on November 18, 1983, the Staff asked the Commission to concur in the Staff's final determination that there is a no i significant hazards consideration associated with the operation of the repaired steam generators at TMI-1. Commissioner James K. Asselstine issued a dissenting opinion Jan. 10, 1984, opining that the NRC Staff "is interpreting the Commission's regulations in a manner that is inconsistent with the language of the i statute and clear intent of Congress as evidenced by the legislative history of the Sholly Amendment." - - ~..
part in the decision making on the Petitioners' requests. They also argued that these" dual and conflicting roles" are also prohibited by the APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seg. (parti-cularly 554); the Commission's Regulations at 10 C.F.R. 2.719 and procedural due process guarantees. The Commission in its Memorandum and Order answered these contentions by identify-ing two separate categories of responsibility or function of the Commission's subordinate Staff members. The first dealing with "on the record ajudications" and the second with " investigative.or prosectorial responsibilities." Thus it responded to Petitioners: These contentions are in error both as a matter of law and of policy. Section 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act deals specifically with on the record ajudications, and is designed to assure the separation of functions between those persons with investigative or prosecutorial responsibilities and those with ultimate decision making authority. Section 2.719 of the Commission's regulations has the same purpose. Here, however, no ajudication has been commenced, and the Administrative Procedure Act and 10 C.F.R. 2.719 clearly do not apply." Northern Indiana ( Bailly), 7 NRC 429, 431 (emphasis supplied.) By identifying in this first pertinently interpretive case, these two separate cataegories of responsibility for the subordinate NRC Staff Administrators, the Commission also defined two separate areas of its function -- one a formal proceeding within Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, and the other agency action not within Section 189. Thus, function may determine the legal basis for jurisdiction. B. DISPOSITION BY Tile SUPREME COURT OF LORION WILL NOT ALTER Tile REQUIREMENT TIIAT NO SIGNIFICANT IIAZARD DECLARATIONS ARE REVIEW-ABLE IN T!!E DISTRICT COURT. This is a case of first impression. It is the first to raise the jurisdictional issues with respect to the "Sholly Amena.mont" and the Commission's process for declarations of "no significant safety hazards". Underlying questions were presented in the first Lorion case that are now before the Supreme Court. Therefore, Appellants recognize that the decision of the Supreme Court in Lorion I may have an impact upon this caso due to the similarities between" Director's Decision's" and "no significant hazards declarations". That impact, however, is unlikely to be controlling in so far as any result that might prevent review of "no significant hazard determinations" in the Federal District Courts (also see liobb's Act, discussion infra pp. 19-21.) This is because a no significant hazards declaration represents, if anything, an even more abreviated agency " proceeding" than that involved in issuance of a Director's Decision. IIere no records or opinion issue as a basis for the NRC Staff position. With no agency provision, other than the Federal Register declaration, in existance, aryl no intra-agency review, the effect is that the need for relief here is even more compelling. In a Director's Decision case, the Commission is dealing with a request for enforcement action, which by its very definition.-
implies some level of participation by the party requesting ) relief.i.e. making the request. A no significant hazard declaration is a unilateral, non-reviewable, NRC Staff declaration that is the basis for issuance of a license amendment under Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act. There is ", possibility for public participation in the way that the agency process is set up. The Supreme Court held in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) that fact finding beyond the administrative record is usually inappropriate.. A reviewing court in considering whether the l agency's decision was arbitrarily capricious or othorwise inconsistent with law may examine the administrative record (1)as to its completeness, (2) whether the agency explained its decision correctly, (3) whether the administrative process was tainted, and (4) whether the agency's accounting in court of interpretation of relevant regulations is consistent with its previous interpretations. l The question here is not whether the agency record is " complete" but rather whether it eve n exists, and if it does; l l how does one identify it ? In order to obtain imprimatur of l a reviewing court an agency must provide a complete record, Pierson v. United States, 428 P. Supp. 381, 392 D. Del. 1977) When the Supreme Court in the overton Park case said the bare record may not disclose the factors that were considered by the official, 401 U.S. at 420, it impled that if the administrative record doea not disclose the agency's conalderations or interpretations of the evidence, the court may require,
" additional explanation of the reasons for the agency decision as may prove necessary." Camp v. Pitts 411 U.S. at 143 143. The Supreme Court found that a de novo proceeding is appropriate when tre fact finding process below is inherently defective. That is the case here. C. The "Necessary First Step" Rationale May Not Be Applied To No Significant !!azard Declarations. Almost the entire rationale of the Commission and Utility Comapny argument in Lorion was that the Director's Consideration was, "like the jurisdiction determination in Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. flRC--a 'necessary first step in the pro-ceeding' to suspend, revoke or amend any license. Rockford League of Women Vpters v. NRC 679 P. 2d 1218,1221 (7th Cir 1982); County of Rockland v. NRC, 709 P. 2d 766, 774 (2d Cir. Cert.) denied No. 83-329 (Nov. 28, 1983)," cited in Brief for the Federal Pntitioners Case Nos. 83-703, 83-1031 U.S. Sp. Ct. June 1984. Here there is no guestion of whether a first step exists. There is no first step. The agency acted unilaterally, not in response to any "Intervenor" request, to issue an operating license amendment that reduced the margins of safety originally established for operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plants. D. The District Court Was Required To Transfer This Case to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631. Upon its determination that it lacked jurisdiction the District Court was required under 23, U.S.C. 1631 to transfer thin case to the Court of Appeals. That Statute providen: 1631. Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for review of adminstrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that I there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall pro-ceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred. -28 U.S.C.A. 1631 (West's 1983) Chapter 1631 is a two way street among the Federal courts and its language is mandatory: "...the court shall... transfer". Further, Judge Penn recognized in open court the seriousness of the nuclear safety issues presented here. The District Court should have transferred to the Court of Appeals. The ef fective date of 28 U.S.C. 1631 was October 1, 1982 Sec. 402 of Pub. L. 97 164. The scant case law in existance indicates transfer was necessary. U.S. v. John C. Greenberg Co., Inc. C.A. Fed. 1983, 702 F. 2d 1362; American Beef Packers Inc. v. I.C.C.,. C.A.D.C. 1983 711 F. 2d 388. E. If Initial Jurisdiction Is Found In The Courts Of Appeal The Hobb's Act 28 U.S.C. 2347 (b) (3) Requires Transfer To District Court For A Determination of The Disputed Facts. The practical issue in this case is not whether administrative decisions such as the one involved in this case should be reviewed in the district courts; rather the issue is whether they should be screened by the courts of appeal before they get to the district courts. Under the Adminstrative Orders Review Act (the "liobbs Act"),,
28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq. (1982), the courts'of appeals cannot remand } .a case to the agency and instruct it to hold a hearing or to supple, ment the record unless the case is one in which the agency process under review constituted proceedings (in whien) a hearing is required i by law," id. 2347 (b) (1). They must transfer to the appropriate I district court any case that requires review of an agency action for i which "a hearing is not requi' red by law and (in which) a genuine i issue of material fact is presented," 28 U.S.C. 2347 (b) (3). The Commission and the courts of appeals have consistently held that NRC directors' decisions under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 are not the product of a ' proceeding', but rather that they constitute ex parte factual determinations for which a hearing is not required by law. As the 4 record here suggests, persons sufficiently aggrieved to seek review of the Staff's declaration of No Significant Hazard will frequently be able to demonstrate that there are genuine issues of material fact and thus that transfer to the appropriate district court is required under the Hobbs Act. 4
- 10. If there are no genuine issues of material fact and if the court 4
of appeals has jurisdiction, it may, of courso pass upon the merits of the issues presented. 28 U.S.C. 2347 (b) (2) f
- 11. See, e.g.,
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Scation, Nuclear 1", 7 N.R.C. 429, 432-33 (1978), aff'f sub nom., Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League v. NRC, 606 P. 2d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1979). a 1 i 1 l. ) i 4 i i 1 }
Thus the practical question here is whether Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2239 (1982), requires the courts of appeals screen petitions for review of license amendment proceedings refusing requests to institute license proceedings even though the significant portion of those petitions will have to be transferred to the district courts. Respondent believes that this Court of Appeals in the Lorion case correctly applied the plain meaning of that section in determining that, absent further action by Congress, both the initial screening and the required fact-resolution functions should be done by the district courts. II Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION TIIAT ISSUANCE OF TilESE LICENSE AMENDMENTS INVOLVES NO SIGNIFICANT liAZARD A The Commission's Conduct liere And In Other License Amendments Since Sholly Rule Enact-ment Constitutes An Abuse Of Discretion. Appellants have contended that the Commission's declaration of no significant safety hazard is agency error, as well as an abuse of agency discretion. In so doing they have raised a substantial issue of material fact. Appellant's position is supported in part by the descriptions of the technical problem contained in that section of this brief entitled The 13ackground Problem. By its identification of the unanticipated and serious.
problem of reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, the Commission acknowledged the existance of an unevaluated and unanticipated risk of vessel failure. The problem was such that Mr. Basdokas, the NRC Safety Engineer, took the unusual step of writing the Chairman of the llouse Subcommittee on Energy and Environmental Affairs to alert him to the severity of the problem. After describing the technical problem, he concluded: This compound transient, known as pressurized thermal shock, is capable of catastrophically fracturing a reactor vessel that has been exposed to a neutron fluence corresponding to only a few Full Power Years Equivalent (FPYE) of' operation, and has a high copper content of about 0.4% in its walls or welds. A reactor vessel fracture is one of the most serious accidents a reactor may experience. Depending upon its location and modo, it is almost certain to cause a core meltdown with all its public health and safety remifica-tions. .[I]t is apparent to me that those PWR's [ Pressurized Water Reactor] with high copper alloy vessels or welds, that have operated for 4 FPYE must be shut down until this matter is resolved in the technical arena. /12 Appellants will not seek to develop further technical back-ground facts, here since we have established a prima facia showing that RPV and PTS were serious safety issues that should have been considered to be significant safety hazards. / 12 See NRC Policy Information SECY-81-286, Pressurized Thermal Shock, May 4, 1981, Demetrios L. Basdekas, NRC Safety Engineer, letter to lionorable Morris K. Udall, Chirman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, April 10, 1981. r-II B TIIE COMMISSION !!AS FAILED IN ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERLY INTERPRET Tile INTENT OF CONGRESS. The Sholly Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act directed the NRC to promulgate regulations which determine whether an amendment to a nuclear power facility operating license involves "no significant safety hazards considerations". Subsequent to the enactment of the "Sholly Amendment", the NRC Staff has engaged in wholesale issuance of a vast number of nuclear power plant operating license amendments, while denying members of the public any opportunity to prior participation. 13 In its regulations, the Commission has promulgated procedures l l and criteria to be used in making the "no significant safety hazards determination." In its interpretation of the Sholly Amendment and the Commission's regulations, the Staff is inter-l pretating and " implementing the Sholly Amendment in a manner that is inconsistent with the language of the Statute and the clear intent of Congress." - James. K. Asselstine, Commissioner, U.S. 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 13. Since the "Sholly Amendment", P.L. No. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 was enacted on April 6, 1983, there have been 1732 No Significant Ilazards Considerations Proposed and 1035 No Significant llazards Considerations issued, as of January 18, 1985. Yet, as of January 18, 1985, the Commission has never conducted a prior hearing on a No Significant llazards Consideration issue. Memo from Denton, NRC Cirector of Rdactor Regulation to Eisenhut, Division of Licensing, "Sholly Statistics:, January 18, 1985. Na views of NRC Commissioner James K. Asselstino on the NRC Staff's No Significant flazards Consideration Determination on the Three Mile Island Unit 1 License Amendment Application for i Steam Generator Repairs, January 10, 1984, (Attached hereto an an Appendix to this Drief.) t
b N III. i l THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR THE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IS INADEQUATE AND FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES A SUPPLEMENT. l The Turkey Pc int Nuclear Power Plants Units Nos. 3 and 4 are two pressurized water nuclear power reactoru located about 15 miles from the city of South Miami, Florida. The l NRC has issued facility' operating licenses DPR-31 and DRP-41 to Turkey Poin.t Units No. 3 and 4 respectively, which allow operation subject to Technical Specifications and safety limits established during the original licensing procca'ure and pursuant to final orders of the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board. The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
- 4321,
'e t. seg. ("NEPA") is the basic national charter for protection of the environment. NEPA provides, in portinent part, as follows: (2) All agencies of the federal government shall. (c) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation or the major federal actions significantly af fecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, and (ii) any adverse environ-mental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 4 2 U.S.C. 4332. One essential purpose of NEPA is to " attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degrada-tion, risk to health or safety or other undesirable and unintended consequences." NEPA, Section 101 (b) ( 2) (42 U.S.C. 4331). (Emphasis nupplied). -
i Resolution of this issue of correct intrepretation could include consideration of the following:
- 1.. Did Congress intend an interpretation of the Commission's Regulations that would allow it to make its No Significant Hazard Consideration based on the merits of the proposed license amendment?
That is, should the determination of a no significant safety hazards consideration, " represent a judgement on the nature of the issues raised by the license amendment rather than a conclusion about the merits of those issues?" (See S. Rep. No. 113, 97th Cong. lat Sess. 15,1931) 2. Would Congress have read the Commission's regulations and their interpretation as being consistent with a "significant safety questions" interpretation of the Sholly Amendment (one where competent experts disagree about whether a license amendment could " involve" a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident" or "a significant reduction in a margin of-safety". Such disagreement could involve a significant safety question and thus a significant hazards consideration. 3. lias the Commission adhered to Congress's understanding that a no significant hazards consideration was a question of signi-ficant safety issues and not a question of significant additional risk? That is, does the avowed Staff practice of making its preliminary and final determinations of no significant hazards considerations on the merits of the amendments, i.e. on whether the amendment poses significant additional risks to the operation of the plant, constitute a legally valid basis for a determination of no significant safety hazard? 4. Has the Commission created an untenably vague standard by providing only exampics of amendments likely or unlikely to involve significant hazards consideration, rather than clearly defining categories of amendments that invoke a no significant hazards consideration? 5. Should the Court direct the Commission to apply an interpretation of its regulations that requres consideration of significant and new and unreviewed safety questions in all no significant safety hazards determinations? 'The NRC staff's current interpretation of the No Significant hazards consideration standards results in arbitrary and inscrutabic application, evades the reviews required by Federal law, and reduces the public's access to the regulatory process. Above all, it violates Sec. 109 of the Atomic Energy Act and the intent of Congress. 2 The NRC and particularly its Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is charged with the responsibility to enforce the Technical Specifications and safety margins that are a condi-tion for the issuance of the original reactor operating license as mandated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and other pertinent federal law. The NRC and more particularly its office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is charged with the responsibility to prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement for every nuclear plant constructed in'the United States. (10 C.F.R. 161). The Final Environmental Impact Statement is one of the most significant bases upon which the NRC predicates its decision on whether or not to issue an operating license to a nuclear power plant. Appellants the cfore submit that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Florida Power and Light Company are violating the spirit and intent of the Atomic Energy Act of 1854. The Environment Policy Act of 1969 and the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Commission's own Rules of Practice at 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and 100 and other pertinent federal law. The President's Council on Environmental Quality ("CEO"), an entity established within the Executive Office of the President by Title II of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4341, et. seq.), is charged with the responsibility to ensure that all federal agencies implement and comply with provisions of NEPA. (421 U.S.C. 4344) In further-ance of this responsibility, CEO publishes regulationn ("CEO Regulations") that inform all federal agencies of the procedures _,
l for and contents of Environmental Impact Statements. (40 C.R.F. l 1500.1 et. seq.) The CEQ Regulations are presently mandatory and binding upon all federal agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (43 Federal Register 55991 (19 78) ). as codified in 40 C.F.R. 1500.3. The applicant for a nucicar power plant operating license or its amendment (" applicant" or "licenyce") shares with the t. NRC the responsibility for the prepardt' ion of the draf t and final, as well as any supplements to the Environmental Impact 1 Statement for that particular facility. Pursuant to sections 51.20 and 51.21 of the N.R.C. Rules, every applicant must prepare draft and final enviornmental reports to be submitted to mhe N.R.C. prior to preparation by the N.R.C. of its draft and final Environmental Impact Statements. In order to guide applicants in preparation of the Environ-mental Reports, the Atomic Energy Commission originally published (Appendix D to 10 C.F.R. Par 51) preparation policies and pro-cedures. The Atomic Energy Commission approved and published the final Environmental Impact Statement ("FES") for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plants in 1972. The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement and its supplements attempts to examine the environmental consequencen of, postulated accidents in Clann I through Clann 8, but does not itincuss or otherwise connider the nevere environmental connequencen of "Clann 9" accidents or those that otherwise exceed the reactor'n original denign banis. -
New information indicates that a serious nuclear accident at Turkey Point is much more likely to occur than was previously believed. When significant new information relevant to environ-mental concerns occur, NEPA and CEQ Regulations, and other federal law directs the appropriate federal agency to prepare a supple-mental Environmental Impact Statement. Further, Section 1502.9 of the CEO Regulations which were promulgated on November 29, 1978 requires al) federal agencies to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the following situations: (C) Agencies: (1) Shall prepare supplements to letter draft or final environmental impace statements if: (1) The Agency makes substantial charges in the proposed action that are role-vant to_pnvironmental concerns; or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. (Emphasis added) On Friday June 13, 1980, the Nucicar Regulatory Commission announced in the Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 116, page 40101, a new Statement of Interim Policy and the withdrawal of the Proposed Annex to Appendix D of 10 C.F.R. Part 100. (45 F.R. 10101). The Commission, in withdrawing the proposed Annex, and its non-requirement for severe accident considerati6n, noted previous criticisms of the rule and some occasions where its own Staff had taken exception to it. In its place the Commission l 4 l promulgated " Interim Guidance" while awaiting the use of l "new methodologies" "in discharge of its responsibil-ities." (45 F.R. 40103). 1 In promulgating this interim guidance the Commission replaced the more precise though incorrect guidelines of the proposed l Annex, with a vague and lengthy recitation of its perceived responsibilities and objectives under NEPA, applying a standard ( of reasonableness of expectation and probability of occurrance l coupled with probability of consequences to be considered in " ongoing" and' future NEPA reviews: "It is the position of the Commission that its l Environmental Impact Statements pursuant to Section l 102 (c) (1) of the National Environmental Policy Act of l 1969, shall include a reasoned consideration of the environmental risks (impacts) attributable to the particular facility or facilities within the scope of each such statement. In the analysis and discussion of such risks approximately equal attention shall be given to the probability of occurrcmce of releases ano to the probability of occurrance of the environmental i consequences of those releases. Events l or accident saquences that lead to releases shall l Include but not be limited to those that can reasonably l be expected to occur. In plant accident sequences that l can lead to a spectrum of releases shall be discussed and shall include sequences that can result in inadequate cooling of reactor fuel and to melting of the reactor core. (45 F.R. 40103). The Commission defined "on going NEPA reviews" as those for j any proceeding at a licensing stage where a final Environmental Impact Statement (PES) has not. been issued." l In those proceedings where it establinhed a showing of "special circumstances" as a precedent for reviewini; previously l l established agency permits. ! t m
.~ Thus this change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in conclusions regarding the environmental risks of accidents expressed in any previously issued Statements, nor, absent a showing of special circumstances, as a basis for opening, reopening or expanding any previous or on going proceeding. (Emphasis added.) (45 P.R.
- 40103, column 2)
As is demonstrated in this brief, the existing "special circumstance" of reactor pressure vessel embrittlement with its susceptibility to fracture induced by pressurized thermal shock 1 meets the test of showing a "special circumstance," and imposes upon the Commission the requirement that the Commission prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in which it expressly analyses the enhanced possibility that reactor pressure vessel shells may crack resulting in a core melt accident and considers the environmental consequences and provides the other reviews required by the Atomic Energy Act NEPA and other pertinent federal law. IV Tl!E SUBJECT LICENSE AMENDMENTS S!!OULD BE VACATED, AND MANDATORY, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF S!!OULD ISSUE. This prayer for relief is the best expression of Issue IV: Wherefore, plaintiffn pray for orders as follows: A. For a declaratory judgement that: (1) the Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement is in-adequate as a matter of law due to new information, developments and circumstances concerning the probability of a serious nuclear accident at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plants which have been dis-covered and which bear upon environmental concerns and which should be addressed in the Enviornmental Impact Statement; -
N. '+ B. For a declaratory injunction declaring it to be a duty of Respondents, United States of America and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider and analyze the problem of reactor pressure vessel embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock (PTS) and the potentially catastrophic environmental con-sequences of a PTS induced accident by preparing promptly, supplemental Environmental Impact Statements which analyze in detail the environmental effects, costs, benefits, and alter-natives under NEPA, on a site-specific basis, rather than generically, for all of the worst-case operating U.S. reactors which have achieved more than four (4) effective full power years of operation and have significant percentages of copper in their axial and circumferential prensure vessel welds. C. For a mandatory injunction which orders the defendants I to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plants at the earliest practicable oppor-tunity. D. For a mandatory injunction which prohibits defendants, United States of America and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission from licensing or authorizing innuance of any facility or operating license amendments in connection with the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, prennurized thermal chock and vencel flux reduction programn that involve change to the operating licenne Technical Specificationn, entablinhed safety margins and other appendicen to the operating license, until there have been conducted prior public hearings under NEPA and other reviewn required by federal law and requented by Plantifin here; 4 5 E. Vacating and settsing aside any license Amendments to facility operating licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41, NRC Docket No. 50-250 and 50-251, issued, or that may have been issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the time of bringing this action pursuant to Notices published by the NRC in the Federal Register on July 20, 1983, 48 FR 33076, 33077 and October 7, 1983, 48 RF.R. 45862, 45863 including, but not limited to, the following changes. 1. Increase the hot channel F 3 21 il limit from 1. 55 to 1. 62; 2. Increase the total peaking factor F limit from 2.30 9 to 2.32; 3. Change the overpower T setpoints and thermal hydraulic limit curves and; 4. Delete restrictions and limits restrictions placed on the old steam generators to allow for operation with tubes plugged in excess of five (5) percent. 5. Use of Westinghouse 15x15 optimized fuel assembly (OFA) with wet annular Burnable (WABA) Rods replacing the Westinghouse Low Parasitic Fuel Cores (LOPAR). F. For the Court to retain continuing jurisdiction to review the adequacy of appellees compliance with all Judgements and Orders entered herein; G. For such additional judicial determinations and orders as are necessary to effectuate the foregoing; 11. For reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs according to proof; and I. For such other and further rol le f a s t h i s Cou rt. ma y - --- l
1 I deem iust and proper to effectuate and complete resulution of e the legal disputes between plaintiffs and defendants. CONCLUSION IIere there is a final agency order. The issuance of the license amendments in December 1983 constituted final agency f action. At that point in time, plaintiffs had exhausted their l 1 i administrative remedies. The final agency order was unsupported I ( by any proper technical record or other visible administrative i record. It did not receive Commission review. The only mani-festation of no significant safety hazard consideration associated with the license amendments are the announcements of amendments themselves. The allegations of the Complaint state valid and substantial claims under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The lower court erred in denying relief. This appeal asks this court to correct that error. Accordingly, the Appellants, Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. and Joette Lorion, ask this Court to reverse the decision below and remand the case with instructions that the Court below vacate its orders of April 27, 1984, May 4, 1984 and June 12, 1984, and enter a judgement granting the declaratory mandatory and injunctive relief requested in Appellants foregoing prayer for relief. Respectfully Submitted, is - ffodder4dbs - Mar in !!. Attorney for Center for Nuclear Henponsibility, Inc. And Joette Lorion 1131 N.E. 06th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Tel: 305-751-8706 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
d '" opsined at c;,,,,,; pin treby i)p/sy reFmr-/ { VIE)(S OF COMMISSIONER JAMES K. ASSELSTINE ON THE j NRC STAFF'S NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETEP,HINATION ON THE THREE flILE ISLAND UNIT I (TMI-1) LICENSE AMENDHENT APPLICATION FOR STEAM GENERATOR REPAIRS On. November 18, 1983 the staff asked the Comission to concur in the staff's final determination that there is no significant hazards a consideration associated "with the operation of the repaired stean r. gener6 tors at THI-1." Unfortunately, staff has misinterpreted the Sholly Amendment,.and a finding of no significant hazards consideration I is not appropriate in this case. Moreover, staff is interpreting the ~ mission's regulations implementing the Sholly Amendment in a manner that is inconsistent with the language of the statute and with the clear intent of Congress, as evidenced by the legislative history of tht-Sholly Amendraent, I cannot, therefore, agree with staff's determinatice in this case or with staf f's interpretation of the Comission's regulations' implementing the Sholly Amendment. Staff's deterr.ination of no significant hazards consideration is based upon a 1983 amendment - the Sholly amendment - to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act. The Sholly provision permits the Comission to make a license amendment imediately effective, without first granting any requested hearing on the merits of the amend:1cnt, if the Comission makes a deterinination that the proposed amendment involves no signifi-cant hazards consideration. 1982-83 Authorization Act for the fluclear Regulatory Comission, Pub. L. No. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (1983). The Commission hu pronulga ted regt:1at ions which establist. proce-du rc e, and criteria to be tJsor' t r. rMking the ' re ' int:i f icant haza rcs
2 consideratiort" (NSHC) detemination. Standards for Detemining Whether License Amendments involve No Significant Hazards Considerations. 48 Fed. Reg.14864 and 14873 (1983) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. 550.91 and 50.92). These regulations provide that for each license amendment for which the staff has made a NSHC detemination the staff must first publish its proposed detemination in the Federal Register for a 30 day coninent period. At the end of the coment period, the amendment may become imediately effective if there has been no request for a hearing l on the amendment. In such cases no further NSHC detemination is made. If the Commission receives a proper request for a public hearing within the 30 day coment period, the Comission will then issue a final NSHC detemina tion. If the final detemination is that there is no significant hazards consideration, then the amendment becenes effective imediately, even if adverse public comments have been received and even though an int'erested person has filed a proper request for a hearing. L l In such cases, the Cemission need not hofd any. required hearing before it issues the amendnent. If. cr. the other hand, the Comission l determines that there are significant hazards considerations involved in the proposed amendment, any required hearing must be completed before theamendmer.tmayb[tssued. l in making its detemination on whether a particular amendtr.ent involves significant hazards considerations 'the regulations-require the Comission to consider whether " operation of the facility infaccordance with the proposed amendment would... (1) Involve a sigr.ificant increase in the probability or conse-quences of an accident previously evaluathd; or )
F-3 (2) from any accident previously evaluated; orC accident s (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety " 48 Fed. Reg. 14864,14871 (1983) (to be codified at 10 C 50.92). FR % In its Statement of Considerstions attached to the S o y amendment rules, the Commission also provided examples both of to involve significant hazards consideration a d amendments likely of those unlikely to n involve significant hazards considerations 48 Fed. Reg. 14864 14870. In an April 30, 1982 letter, the licensee for THI l inf ffRC that it intended to repair its steam gene ormed the rators under the authority of 10 CFR 5 50.59 using the kinetic expansion repair tech i n que.I By. citing section 50.59 of Comission regulations licensee indi determined that its proposed repair would not cated it had involve "a change in the ^ technical spIifications incorporated in the lic ense or an unresolved safety question." 10 CFR ! 50.59. This meant that licensee thought it could proceed with the repair without prior Comission ap proval. In ~ August of 1982, staff-told licensee ~ that the st eam generator problem appeared to involve unreviewed safety questions concerns were: The staff's major 1. The corrosion mechanism and extent of ' corrosion generators are unique. tial consequences of additional plant operation subsThe e steam equent to 1 "This technique involves the use cact. stean generator tubt of small explosive charr<s inside This is to prevent tube failures caused by co'.o exp the tubesheet. The tubes would norr. ally have been repair ^d by pl of placing a plug in the tube te prevent water from flrming th ~ rrosion. ugging, which cor'sists rough it. i
4 4 the repair of the defects. In particular, the potential for this type of corrosion to reinitiate during operation and to rapidly progress, thus adversely affecting the steam generator primary, pre _ssure boun.dary, needed to be reviewe.d by.the.. staff. 2. The potential existed for this type of corrosion to attack other primary pressure boundary materials. 3. The proposed tube repair technique (kinetic expansion) had not previously been approved by the staff as an acceptable method for repairing defective steam generator tubes. 4 Since portions of the tubes within the tubesheet contained defects greater than 40% through-wall and the repair method for the majority of these defects did not involve plugging, an anendment to the plant Technical Specification (Tech Spec or TS) 4.19 is needed prior to return to power operation.' " Safety Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Repair and Return to Operation," NUREG-1019, p.1 (1983). (footnote added) The licensee conducted an extensive progran to return the steam genera-tor to service, and the staff issued a safety evaluation of the kinetic expansion repair technique in October of 1982. The staff found that the repair itself,,did not involve an unreviewed safety question or a nodi-fication to the technical speci fications, and could, therefore, be - conducted without prior NRC approval. However, the staff concluded that NRC approval of the overali program to return the steam generator to service was necessary before ary operation of the plant would be permitted because operatien of the plant with kinetically expanded -tubes would require a nodification of the technical specifications. NUREG-1019, p. 2. 2A TM!-1 Tetb Spec permits opersticr. c.nly with tubes repaired by plugging, r.ot with tubes repaired by the kinetic expansion technique. The Tech Spec is considered a part of the liccnse and an arendment of the Tech Spec is an amendmont to the licente.
5 i On May 9. 1983, licensee submitted to the Commissien its request to revise the technical specifications to allow operation of the plant / after repair of a steam generator by methods other than plugging. On' liay 31,1983, staff published in the Federal Register a proposed no significant hazards consideration determination for the requested amendment to the technical specifications. The staff concluded that the amendment "does not involve a significant hazards consideration because compensatory measures will be employed to provide a level of safety in i operation with the repaired steam generators commensurate with that anticipated of the facility had it no't experienced the need to repair ++ steam generators." Hetropolitan Edison Co., at. al., Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed no Significant Hazards Consideratine Deternination and Oprretunity for Hearing,. 38 Fed. ~ Reg. 24231(1983). That Federal Register notice also sought public i comment on the determination and announced an opportunity to request a public hearing on the nerits of the amendment request. An intervening party requested a hearing within the prescribed tire and was admitted as a party. That proceeding is now in its early stages. The staff issued a Safety Evaluation on August 25, 1983 in which it evaluated the kinetic expansion repair method and subsequent operation of the facility using the repaired steam generators. NUREG 1019. Staff fcund the repair process effective and reliable, and found that licensee had returned the reactor coolant system to its original licensing basis. ~ NtfREG-1019, p. 45. Licensee conducted post-repair testing, including [ hot-functional test ing, of the stean generat ort, and on November 18, 1963 staff sent to the Corcission two decme-ts: (l' Staff's Supplement i
9 6 to its.Neust ? Stb Safety Evaluation; er.o (2) Statf's final no significant hazards consid': ration deterraination. It its final ~' ' dettrnination, ~ staff f et:nd that orcrotion of the f6cility i'i accordar.cc with the ;,rcresed anendnent would r,ct : (1) insolve a sigtificant the prcitbility er censequences of an acr %nt previc.t,5 v 1 i r.c roi se in evd ioated; or ( ? '. c rea tc-ib ; css ibi i t t) of a nce c.- 6tierent L ' r e 'o f accident i.et previously cvaluatec, or (3) irvelve a significant erructinr it a margin <;: sc'ety. "Fira l Detenc.in.' t ir.n of !!c S igni fica r. lie za r d : G.r.s i dera i i t.n,' pp. 10-12; and see. 16 CFF 4 50.9. The stef' ccccluded, therefore, that operation of ilti-1 with the rep.iirca stean ge r:e ra t e r-irvolvec ra sicrificart !.azarcs cci.ir'c rM 4 r '. it< firdn.gs. Ser, lr t;... C o:. :0<<4 er. t.ri.-ings, sta" e'cri#- Tra.r:u n :e o f '!;!-Stear Cers ra'e r "Pne-ire. ih'. ,n't
- <- ente -
3 rj ~
- we :-
c,. r r. - 7, icC3; and, ' Tire tn-i - Litioct ia. en i;;i-1 Sten-Generntors" Transcript o' D rriis s i nr. "c ating. y c gi pr. ,.......s. .~ 4 r, *. SN, Tr create '.*i r if icant.:ddi tional r sP to cpr.wiori cr th..,.
- p. 30, lines 17-25; p. 57, lir.cs 7-2/.; p. 72 lir:e 2 tc g. 73 iine 6 (Dec. 7, H;D3) and Tr. r. 22 lines 7-10; p. 31 lires 8-!!
I. Cec. Ei, 1983). C i r.c c-the .,: qui: s.t c' ar e r.dren t w, rcreir, the norpose of i h i t t' was te rretorc-t h. piant to its prior cor iitien -- thc. to return it tc it< erioirc! lir.cnsino bcsis, the taff concludee that there r.cule be no s.- firant i.t r e nis co.i,i a. r.* t i on. T r. 6'), 1 in */ "C. "5 rest, av7 cin r r f r.c.- ! t <. i t.rr acp.ir-d ie. sli (' ti, 'e + ,. m - r-s t- 't. 't -~
t 4 NUREG-1019, Supplement 1, which staff found affirmed its preliminary determination. Thus, as the staff explained, it made its preliminary and final determinations iof no significant ha;zards consideration based-- on the merits of the amendment itself - i.e., on whether the amendaent posed significant additional risk to operation of the plant. Unfortunately, that determination is not the determination called for by the Sholly.anendnent. Rather, as its legislative history makes abundantly clear, the Sholly provision requires the Commission to detennine whether the amendment presents any significant safety 4 questions, i.e. whether the amendment. poses any significant new or unreviewed safety issues for consideration. The report of the Conference Committee on the legislation which enacted the 5 holly amendment emphasizes that in making a determination of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission is not to ' prejudge the merits of the' amendment -- i.e., whether the plant could operate without significant additional risk as a result of the amendment. Ir. stead, the Commission is merely to determine whether there are significant health or safety issues involved. H.R. Rep. No. 884, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 37-38(1982). The Commission is to examine the proposed amendment and determine whether the Commission, in making a decisinn.on the amendment application, would have to consider and address significant health and safety questions. As the report of the Senate Committee which recommended the Sholly amendment states: "The determinatinn of 'co significant hazards consideration' should represent a judgment on the nature of the issues raised by the license amen 6,ent rather than a
_.~
- . ' ^
.- + L 1 conclusion ab.out the merits of those issues." S. Rep. No. 113, 97th CEAg.,1stSess. 15 (1981). Staff a'sserts, howeieF, that it applied Comnission regulatio'n's ~ 3 i literally in making its no significant hazards consideration determina-tions, and that that should suffice. Staff reviewed each of the three-criteria in section 50.92, and found no significant increase in the probability and consequences of an accident, no possibility of a new or - different accident and no significant reduction in a margin of safety. Since staff found no significant additional risk, it concluded that . there were no significant hazards considerations. " Final Determination of fio Significant Hazards Consideration," pp.10-12. Staff notes that the regulations it applied were available to Congress ir, proposed form at the time the Sholly amenda,ent was beir.g considered by Congress, and argues that since Cohgress did not object to those standards, and that since portions of the legislative history indicate Congressional intent tc codify past Commission practice, staff's interpretation of the Sholly ar.encment rmst be acceptable. See, for example, H.R. ho. 22 Part 2, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 26 (1981). Staff's argument is without merit. Read in isolation, the Chanission's regulations could be interpreted as Staff does.
- However, i
5 tiie central question is what Congress understood "no significant hazards consideration" and the Commission regulations to mean. The reguitions I must, then, be read in context; they must be read against the background of the legislatise history of the Sholly amendment. L i As discussed above, the language of the Cns".ittee reports on the shally l< gislation expresses the issue cimiv in terr-of s i g n i f i c,.r. 9 1
6 9 health or-safety questions and also expresses Congress' understanding that the NSHC detennination will not be a merits determination. H.R. / Rep. No. 884, 97th Cong..' 2d Sess. 37-38 (1982); 5. Rep. No. 113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 14-15 (1981). Also, the Commission repeatedly presented the issue to various congressional comittees as a question of significant issues, not as a question of significant risk. Then Chairman Hendrie told the House Subcomitte on Energy and the Environment that whether there were significant hazards considerations was a question of whether there were "significant safety questions involved", whether there were "new safety issues raised, no new unreviewed hazards connected with an amendment", and whether the Cotraission saw "any safety-connected issues" in the amendment. "ttucl ea r F:egulatory Comission Operating Licensing Process: Oversight Hearing Eefore the Subcomittee on Energy ano the Environment of the House Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs," 97th Cong.,1st Sess. 30, 22 and 75 (1981) (statements of Joseph Hendrie, Chaiman NRC). Chairman Hendrie tisc explained the neaning of "no significant hazards consideration" to the. Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation. He said "We are dealing here with a class of amendments that involve no safety questions in our view of any significance", and in answer to a question from Senator Hart explained that "It means no significant questions of public health and safety." "fluclea'r Powert lant Licensing Delays and the Impact of the Sholly Versus fiRC Decision: Hea rings Before the Subcor:nittee on i;uclear Reculation of the Senate Committee on Environnent and Public Works." 97th Ccng., 1st Sess. 138, 149, 156 (1981} (statements of Joseph Hendrie, Chairman tiRC). Lased upon th( Ccerissicn's test mony, r.cn<:rese unp r*.tood that the cocstion of nc l
4 10 significant hazards considerations was a question of significant safety issues, not a question of significant additional risk, and that the NSHC detennination would not b'e a judgment on the merits of the amendment. Given this understanding, what weight can we afford to the fact. that Congress was aware of proposed Comission regulations which - contained the same three criteria for making f;SHC determinations now contained in 10 CFR 5 50.92 and applied by the staff in this case? One rest first place into the balance the fact that Congress described what it expected the Comission's criteria to look like. That description excluded any standard which would have t'he staf f making a flSHC determination based on the merits of the amerdment application: Further, in 1978 the Congress failed, wher. specifically requestec, to acopt the staff's interpretation by changing the "the no significant hazards consideration" language in section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act to "no significant additional risk to the public health and safety." In supporting this proposed change in the wording of the statute, then Chairman Hendrie explained tc the Senate Committee er Environment e r.d Dublic k'orks: Finally, I want to t6 o m a cf a pra.i',4er. that revises slightly the present provisions of the Act dealirc vith advance notice of certain amendments. The present Act calls for advance notice of issuance of certain construction permit and operating license amendments when a "significant hazards consideration" is involved. This provision has proved extrenely difficult to administer, primarily because of its apparent emphasis on the amount of controversy and review effort associated with the anendment, rather than on substantive matters. The bill would revise this provisior so as to place the emphasis where it should be - on the amount of additional risk, if any, to public health and safety posed by the proposed amendment. If the proposed amendnent does entail a significant additional risk, then prior public notice and opportunity for hearing should and would be afforded. ':f?uclea r Siting and Licensing Act of 1978: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on f;uclear Regulation of the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works." 95th Ccng., ?d Sas<. 183-84 (1978). Congress failed te amend section 16 of the Atonic Energy Act as requested, leaving intact the "no v.<;r i f icars huards consideration" (Footnote Continord
~ 11 Thc. conferees also expect the Commission, in promulgating the regulations required by the new subsection (2)(C)(1) of section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act, to establish standards that to.the extcnt practicable drawf a clear distinction between license a,mendments that involve a significant hazards consideration and those anendments that involve no such consideration. These standards should not require the NRC staff to prejudge thifiserit's of tTie Tsiues raised by a ~ ~ proposed license amendment. Rather, they should only require the staff to identify those issues and determine whether they involve significant health, safety or environmental considerations. These standards should be capable of being applied with ease and certainly, (sic) and should ensure that the NRC staff does not resolve doubtful or borderline cases with a finding of no significant hiY'a~ ds~ consideration. r H.R. Rep. No. 884, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 37 (1982). r Thus, although Congress was aware of the Commission's proposed regulations, it did not understand them to, or endorse an interpretation of th?m which would, allow the Commission to make its NSHC determination based on the merits of the proposed license amendrent. FurtherNo~re, while staff's literal interpretation of the regulation is reasonable when the rule is read in isolation, it is not the only plausible interpretation. The criteria in. 10 CFP. 4 50.92 can be read as being consistent with the "significant safety issues" interpretation of the Sholly amdendment. For example, using the language of the regulation, a license amendment could " involve" a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident or a significant reduction in a margin of safety if, because of factual or methodological i disputes, competent experts could disagree about whether such results could occur. Such disagreement could involve a significant safety (footnote Continued) languaoe. This language was rrtained when the 5 holly amendment was pa<. sed five years later. ur 1*-T' -'-'F v '=' "-"-te--t-w-r-e v w~-y r-r - - - - - w-Ng---w-e t r v-g=-
~ 12 question, and, thus a significant hazards consideration. Under this l interpretation; Congress would have read the Commission's regulations as being consistent with a "significant safety questions" interpretation of I the Sholly Amendment, and the mere fact that Congress was aware of the regulations does not mean that they endorsed the interpretation staff is i l now putting forward in this case. A final factor to. consider on this question of interpretating the term "no significant hazards consideration" is the Commission's own statoent in its notice of rulemaking. In the Notice of Rulemaking for the criteria in 10 CFR % 50.92, the Connission disavowed any intent to use the NSHC criteria to prejudge the merits of the final safety review. j 48 Fed. Reg. 14867 (1983). When the Commission regulation is read in context, the eviden:e weighs heavily against the staff's literal reading of the regulations being an acceptable interpretation of the term "no significant hazards consideration." It is evident, then, that what sta " should have considered was whether there were any new or unrev wwe safety issues associated with the repair. Whether the plant can operate safely with t the repaired tubes - i.e. the merits of the amendment application - t should not have heen the basis for staff's NSHC determination.4 l i l 4 Staf f argues further that this interpretation of the Sholly 'i amendment would have required them to ignore all of the technical information available which indicated that the repairt were adequate. The argument apparently is that in determining whether the issues raised are significant, the staff should be able to corisider all information available to it on the merits of the anendment applicatieEt This rni icar-hazards argument night have some validity if the rc consideration determination were to be trece o.. va fer there is 'significant additional risk". But, the questior, is the sienificar.ce of (Too nn.e Continued) 1: -er--+e e-ews--,ee-- .-,..,.------,..wm-.._-wem se - 2r m.--.--,w+, r- . - + --r-- -ww, -i-- -- s-m- -w
13 Staff indicated in its Commission briefings that even if the Commission does not accept its "significant additional risk" interpretation of the Shdlly amendment, it has complied with the amendment under the "significant issues" interpretation. At those briefings, staff told the Commission that it had considered whether there were significant new or unreviewed safety issues involved with operation of the plant after repair and had found none. See Tr. p. 85, lines 9-25; p. 98 line 25 to p. 100 line 8 (Dec. 7,1983) and Tr. p.19 line 3 to p. 21 1.ine IS; p. 38 line 5 to p. 39 line 10. (December 8, 1983) Unfortunately, there is no evidence of this in the staff's NSHC determination or in either the Safety Evaluation (NUREG-1019) or its Supplement.5 (Footnote Continued) the questions raised by the application, not the significance of any additional risk. Further, 'to follow this argument tc its logical extrene could result in the Ccenission ainest never caking a determination that there arc significant hazards considerations. The staff and licensee need only complete all of their analysis before making a NSHC determination, and any amendment staff would eventually approve for operation would not contain any significant hazards consideration, regardless of the significance of the questions the staff had to resolve in deciding whether to grant the amendment application, s or attach conditions thereto. Since staff rarely, if ever, approves a license amendment that involves significant additional risk, staff's Interpretation of the Sholly Amendment would permit virtually all license amendnents to be issued without a prior hearing. Such a result is manifestly inconsistent with the position taken by the Commission in requesting the legislation and with the intent of Congress in enacting the Sholly Amendment. 5 The argument has also been made that staff conplied with the Sholly anendment the nature of the issues involved rr.therin its preliminary f 5HC determination, lookin than at the merits of the Prienda?nt applicci ton, and tha t tu'- tient. A look at the stafs prelininary determination belies that r.rgument, ar.d shows that the staf f was concerned with safety of operation. not with thb sienificance of the questions involved. 48 Fec. Pec. 7473 (1983). See also p. 5, above. I e
w s g 14 In fact.in NUREG-1019, staff identified four issues which it termed unreviewed safety questions. MUREG-1019. See p. 4 above. The staff also tells us that while this process - kinetic expansion of tubes - is not a new process and has been used on millions of new tubes, it has never before been used to repair used reactor tubes in a sensitized condition. Tr. p. 32, lines 10-14; Attachment to Transcript, p. 4 (December 7, 1983). The staff, its consultants, and licensee engaged in a substantial amount of effort in order to reach the conclusion that the repaired steam generators would indeed meet NRC safety requirements. NUREG -1019, Tr. p. 48 lines 10-24. Furthermore, the technical evaluatior report provided by Franklin Research Center (FRC), a staf f consultant, chcr?cterized this repair process in a manner which ecphasized both its novelty and its close relation to safety, saying: AltN'ough the repair process (described earlier) af kinetically expanding tubes onto tubesheets is not new, this is the first applicaticn of this method to repair a nuclear steam generator tube in what is, in metallurgical teres, a sensitized condition, i.e., grain boundary precipitation of carbides had resulted f rom the stress-relieving heat treatment applied to the generators following their original fabrication, which involved rechanical tube rolling and seal welding of the tubes on the outside surface of the tubesneet. Forming a new seal length below the old one and thus eliminating the upper cracked regici of tubing from consideration is also a novel application. Finally, the tube /tubesheet crevices were in a oxidized or corroded state stemming f rom both service operation and idle downtime exposure. Based upon the histcry of successful applications of the explosive expansion of tubes into a tubesheet, both in fabricating new heat exchangers and in repairing in-service ones, there did not appear to be any sericus questions concerning the technical fea-sibility of the expansion process. Rather, efforts were concen-trated on assuring that the precedur( would be adequate to oect the tube /tubesheet qualification spr.cifications for strength at t h. r i-r i. tu > net en m a' .h uil:.ut) and leakt ightness, while affecting the structural integrity c.r fatigue trKistance of itc ccneratorf. as a who'c.
r e \\ t. r 15 r TER-C5506-311/312/313, Attachment I to i:UREG-1019, Supp. No. 1, pages 7 and 8. Thus, not only is this a ' novel application of this procedure, but it involves important safety considerations such as a leaktightness and structural integrity of the steam generator as a whole. Under these circumstances, the facts do not appear to support a conclusion that staff dealt with no significant new or unreviewed issues in determining the merits of this arendment application. At a minimum, d I would require an explanation of why issues such as the following were not significant new or unreviewed safety issues: (1) The nature and extent of the cerrosion mechanism are unique. Has the corros aur, mechanism been arrested? Has it affected other primary systen comoonents? (2) The use of the lir; etic es;ansion re;a r ec m has r'ever before been applied to used, sensitized stean generator tubes. What acceptance criteria should the staff apply to the repair? (3) Do the residues of the kinetic expansion process result in a potential for new corrosion phenomena? n-(4) Uhether and to what r> tor' the corrosior and subsequent repair lead to a r4cc it change: ( a ', licenu conditiens,
'o T, . c s' - /d16 e.y . w'R.QL (b) emergency procedures, and (c) analyses of loss of main feedwater transients. Absent a convincing explanation, including a documented supporting analysis, I cannot concur in the staff's determination of no significant hazards consideration. As it stands, staff's determination does not comply with the law, and the Co mission should not permit the proposed amendment to Tit!-l's technical specifications to become immediately-effective. Moreover, it is apparent that staff is applying its "no significant risk" interpretation of the Commission's regulations implementing the Sholly amendnent in making all of its NSHC determinations. The Commissior should imraediately direct staff to apply the "r:c significant new and unreviewed safety questions" interpretation'of the regulations in makir.g all' future NSHC deterninations. 1; /
...~.._ i 1 4 IN Tile UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR Tile j DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT t t NO. 84-5570 CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY INC., and JOETTE LORION, Appellants, f-v. l-I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,- and FLORIDA POWER & LIGIII' COMPANY, Appellees. I 1 i ON APPEAL FROM TiiE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR Tile DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA f i ! i REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS .j c Martin II. Ilodder 1131 NE 86 Street l Miami, F1. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Attorney for the Center April 1, 1985 for Nuclear Responsibility l and Joene Lodon C.A. NO. 83-3570 4 = .---,~,e ,-_,,y--- - - -, - ~ - ,----g ,-my -r.-.&-,,v-- yv, --+----, -- -%-,-w--, .-.r-,.s
(- ( TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Cases and Authorities i e INTRODUCTION 1 I. THE NEW REGULATORY PROCESS: A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD 2 A. The Whole Is More Hazardous Than Any Of Itc Parts 4 B. Ms. Lorion's Bleak House: The Search for a Forum 5 C. Appeals Arising From the Lorion Decision Staying the Mandate of the Court 6 II. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO 3 EAR AND RESOLVE THIS CASE ON THE MEltITS 7 III. THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1631 10 t'
s TABLE OF CASES Page Lorion v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Directors Decision 21, 14 NRC 1078 (1981); 712 F. 2d 5,6,& 11 1472 (1983), petitions for cert. granted March 26, 1984 and cases Nos. 83-703, 83-1031, consolidated oral argument and case submitted Oct. 29, 1984. FPL v. Lorion et al. --SP. CT.-- 53 L.W. 4360 Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. 8 371 U.S. 215 (1962) Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964) 8 Wolfson v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964) 8 Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139 (1964) 8 Bowder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill. 8 434 U.S. 257, 272-74 (1978) Slatick v. U.S. Dept. of Labor 698 F. 2d 4 33 11 Hempstead County and Nevada County v. U.S.E.P.A. 11 700 F.2d 459 (1983)
~ .5 s 4 i IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR Tile i DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 1 - l NO. 84-5570 l. CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY INC., and JOETTE LORION, Appellants, 1 v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellees. 1 ON APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES DITRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1 REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS i 1 INTRODUCTION This ir. a case that asks the Court to examine carefully the extent to which the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") and its licensees may use procedural shcIl games to eliminate effective participation by interested members of the public and avoid the reviews required by federal law in [ i major regulatory decisions. i l i
4 -- I. THE NEW REGULATORY PROCESS: A SCHEME TO DERPRAUD. In 1981, the Commission publicly disclosed that the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants had the most seriously embrittled 1/ reactor pressure vessels of some 80 operating U.S. reactors. The Commission notified the Licensee, the Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") that the embrittlement of the Turkey Point nuclear reactors "was approaching levels of concern". Since those disclosures in 1981, Ms. Joette Lorion and the Center for Nuclear Responsibility (" Center") have repeatedly attempted to compel the NRC to conduct hearings to determine the severity of the problem and the appropriate remedy. The NRC and the Licensee, FPL, have not only successfully resisted all these attempts, they have also designed and sought to implement a program to permit the Licensee to utilize an experimental technology with no prior public hearings nor National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) examination of the serious technical and environmental concerns their program presents. 1/ In 1981, the NRC identified an unanticipated and serious problem. Radioactive bombardment of copper alloys used in the weldings in early reactor pressure vessels had caused the vessels to embrittle more rapidly than anticipated. See NRC Staff Seeks Additional Information on Pressure Vessel Thermal Shock, Release No. II-81-79 (NRC Office of Public Affairs, Reg. II, Aug. 26, 1981. See also, e.g. M. Toner, "U.S. Reports Possible Flaws in N-Plants: Old Steel ' Vulnerable' at Turkey Point", The Miami Herald, Sept. 8, 1981, See A.,Pg. 1.
3 - 3_ In the. implementation of this " Vessel Flux Reduction Program", 3/ two elements have emerged as central to the scheme.
- First, the Licensee has submitted in seriatim about half a dozen sets of l
amendment requests seeking Commission approval for parts of a program, and thereby sought to avoid review of the program as a whole. Second, the NRC Staff has, relying upon the "Sholly Amendment", made "no significant safety hazard determinations" for each of the parts of the program, and has thereby permitted the Licensee to implement the whole without the requirements of any prior hearing or possibility of review as required by NEPA and other pertinent federal law. (The whole series of License Amendment requests that are compnents of the Vessel Flux Reduction Program are reproduced in a chronological table as Attatchment A to this brief.) In some cases, amendments are described as being components -of the Program in their respective Federal Register Notices, while in others, the direct relationship to the Vessel Flux Reduction 2/ See footnote 1 supra; Also, see: Letter Darrell 0. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Florida Power & Light Co., Robert E.
- Uhrig, V.P.,
August 21, 1981, A Commission Show Cause letter under 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (f). Here the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement is described by the Commission as " approaching levels of concern" due to age coupled with the high levels of degradation being experienced. 3/ " Vessel Flux Reduction Program" (See footnote 4 infra. FPL letter March 25, 1983, Attatchment B) is the Agency's denomination of the experimental scheme it has sanctioned and the Licensee has devised in its effort to maintain full power operation over the projected lifetime of the facility, while attempting to achieve a reduction in vessel flux or radiation degradation of the reactor pressure vessel.
( ( ' Program is obscured or artfully disguised. Yet, each listed amendment is a necessary and integral cramponent of the vessel Flux Reduction Program originally described by the Licensee in their letter of March 25, 1983, to the Commission 4/ which identified and evaluated the program and its parts. A. The Whole Is More Hazardous Than Any of Its Parts. The Commission and the Licensee have almost achieved indirectly, that which might not have been allowed under the Commission's rules in a more direct and broad consideration of the problem. In so doing, the Commission has engaged in an extra-legal practice. It has repeatedly granted amendments to the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants' operating licenses that involved significant reductions in previous margins of safety that the Commission itself had originally esatblished. It has done so with the full knowledge that the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement at those nuclear power plants poses significant and unresolved safety hazards and threatens potentially catastrophic damage. It has withheld and delayed taking action required by the National Environmental Policy and Atomic Energy Acts. It f) See Letter w/ attatchments, March 25, 1983, from Robert E.
- Uhrig, V.P. Advanced Systems & Technology, rPL, to the otfice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Attn. Stephen A. Varga, Unlef Operating Reactors Branch #1, Div. of Licensing, U.b.N.RTU.,
RE: Turkey Point Units 3 & 4, Docket Nos. du-zbu, au-231, Pressurized Thermal Shock. The letter and its attarchmcTIts A-E, identifies the Problem, Plant Status, and the Program designed to deal with it. The Program is an incremental one, and the several licenses amendments are part of it. See relevant sections of the March 25, 1983, FPL Letter as Attatchment B.
( ( ( has cooperated with the Licensee's schedule and approved each of the parts, while denying meaningful participation to members of the public who may be adversely affected by the overall program. Now, with nearly all the requested amendments issued, the NRC and Licensee ask the Court to close its eyes, so that the job can be finished. B. Ms. Lorion's Bleak House: The Search for a Forum. Ms, Lorion sought judicial review of the Commission's Director's Denial of her 1981 request that the NRC implement an enforcement action (conduct a hearing under 10 C.F.R. 2.202). 5/ When Ms. Lorion brought her appeal of the Director's Denial of her request to this Court of Appeals, the Court decided sua sponte that it lacked intitial subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Lorion's challenge to the denial of her 2.206 petition and transferred the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia, as required by 28 U.S.C.A. 1631 (West's 1983). 5/ Ms. Lorion in her letter of 9-11-81, claimed that (1) the reactor's steam generator tubes had not been inspected, (2) the plugging and consequent deactivation of 25% of the steam generator tubes impaired the systems heat removal capacity, and (3) the steel reactor vessel had become dangerously brittle and, therefore, might not withstand the thermal shock that might accompany any emergency cooldown of the reactor core. Lack of inspection was mooted on 10-19-81, with an inspection of the steam generator tubes one month af ter Lorion's letter. The Commission, while admitting that both steam generator tube integrity and pressure vessel embrittlement and rupture are " unresolved sa fety issues", found the risk of steam generator tube leakage reno te, and the risk of reactor vessel failure in the "near term" to be "unlikely". The Staff agreed that additional action was required to resolve the long term problem of reactor pressure vessel embrittlement. In re Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey Point Plant, Unit 4), 14 N.R.C. 1078 ( l'J 81 )
's . C. Appeals Arising From the Lorion Decision Staying the Mandate of the Court. 6/ During the pendancy of Supreme Court Review, and while the mandate was stayed in the first Lorion case, the Commission began its implementation of the Vessel Flux Reduction Program by its issuance of two sets of license amendments in December of 1983, while denying Ms. Lorion and the center any opportunity for a prior hearing. 7/ Following the teachings of this Court in the first Lorion case, and recognizing that the unilateral, irCormal agency process for making determinations of ~ "no significant safety hazard considerations" based upon no visible record represented an even more abbreviated agency process than a director's denial, Ms. Lorion brought her appeal of the amendments in the District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. 6/ After the Supreme Court granted petitions for writs of certiorari brought by the FPL Co. (Case No. 83-703) and the U.S. N.R.C. (Case No. 83-1031), Ms. Lorion by her Counsel filed briefs and presented oral argument (10-29-84) in support of the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court decided Lorion on March 20, 1985, holding Section 2239 vests in the Court of Appeals initial subject matter jurisdiction to review the Commission's denials of citizen petitions under 10 C.F.R. 2.206. FPL v. Lorion et al. --SP. Ct.-- 53 L.W. 4360. 7/ The NRC issued one set of License Amendments for Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 on December 9, 1983, (See 48 F.R. 56518, Dec. 21, 1983 J.A. pg. 166.) On December 23,1983, the second set, also for both units,was issued, (Sec 49 F.R. 3364, Jan 26, 1984). J.A. pg. 168 .) "J.A." refers to Joint Appendix.
( ( ( _7_ Judge Penn, while noting on the record the seriousness of the issues raised, found the Court lacked initial subject matter jurisdiction but failed to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals as required at 28 U.S.C.A. 1631 (West's 1983). Now af ter nearly four years of wandering in a jurisdictional maze, Ms. Lorion returns to the Courts still seeking due process of law and a forum for appellate review of her claim that the agency has abused its discretion by failing to properly consider r reactor pressure vessel embrittlement in the context of its site specific implications to the public's health and safety at the Turkey Point nuclear power plants near Miami, Florida. The technical issue posed here is a serious one, but it pales in comparison to the legal, due process, and abuse of discretion concerns raised by both Lorion cases. Appellants have brought this action, not only to challenge the immediate agency conduct, but to challenge a persistent course of improper conduct by which the Commission and its Licensees have effected license amendments calculated to deny citizens meaningful participation in the nuclear reactor licensing process. II. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND RESOLVE THIS CASE ON THE MERITS. The present case illustrates an ambiguity that the 1963 revisions to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not address and presents an appropriate case for this Court to construe that rule and Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
1, ( -g-Procedure to exercise jurisdiction because the delay in filing of the notice of appeal resulted from conduct of the district court that misled the parties below.
- See, e.g.,
Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 (1962); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964; Wolfson v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964) (finding jurisdiction where notice of appeal was delayed in reliance upon misleading action of district court) ; see also, 9 Moore's Federal Practice 204.02; c.f. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139 (1964). 8/ The court below affirmatively advised the parties and its clerk that the basis for this order dismissing the case could be gleaned from an " accompanying Memorandum Opinion". The court's Memorandum Opinion did not, however, accompany the order and was only issued and filed eight days later, on May 4, 1984. The clerk ~ of the court was apparently misled because he did not immed-lately serve the order on the parties as required by Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.9/ The absence of the " accompanying Memorandum Opinion" referred to in the order appears to Save led the clerk initially to construe the order as requiring him to await further " direction of the courts" before preparing and signing a judgment in accordance with Rule 58 (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8/ Indeed it seems clear that the Supreme Court would have taken the same approach in Bowder v. Director, Dept. of Cor-rections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 272-74 (1978) Blackmun, J., concurring) (Br. PPL at 18) had not the respondent there affirmatively rejected the theory upon which the Court could have found jurisdiction.
( Appellee NRC, notwithstanding its belated protestations, appears to have been similarly misled. Ten (10) days after the Memorandum Opinion was filed, the NRC filed its motion asking the court to amend its findings to alter the basis for its judgment on Lorion's environmental claims ( A.144-46).10/ The court itself apparently shared the confusion because it ruled upon that motion and revised its Memorandum Opinion in a manner that substantially altered the issues that would otherwise have been before this Court on appeal ( A.155-59). The Notice of Appeal was timely filed thereafter (A4). Against this background, this Court was clearly correct in denying appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal.
- Clearly, Rule 4(a) is not to be construed to limit the jurisdiction of this court that has been prescribed by law.
Rule 1 (b), F.R.A.P. Thus the ambiguity created by the reference to an 1 accompanying memorandum opinion in the lower court's order should be construed as a direction to the clerk justifying 9/ Appellant's counsel did not receive a copy until May 10th, fourteen (14) days after it had been entered on the docket. See Aff. of M. Ilodder dated Nov. 21, 1984. 10/ Appellees now argue that the motion it submitted ten (10) days after the Memorandum opinion was filed constituted,a Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order under Rule'60(b) (e.g., Br. FPL at 18) These parties had no standing to seek relief from the order; it had granted them the relief they sought. The motion was clearly intended as a motion by the prevailing party asking the court to amend its findings even though no alteration of the order would be thereby required within the meaning of Rule 4(a) (4) (ii) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. To the extend there is any ambiguity, this Court should so construe it to prevent injustice that would otherwise result from appellant's reasonable reliance.
r-( ( delay in entry of a formal judgment until that court' reasons for its order had been received. See Rule 58 (1), F.R. Civ. P. On this basis and for the reasons presented in Appellant's Reply to Federal Appellee's Motion to Dismiss, appellant submits that this Court has and should exercise jurisdiction. III. THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1631 The District Court erred in not transferring this appeal to the Court of Appeals coincident upon its finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the issues raised. The Appellees have argued inter alia, that Appellants should have requested such transfer in order to claim the benefit of 28 U.S.C. 1631. This, however, is an incorrect view. Structurally, U.S.C. 1631 does not contemplate, or otherwise state any requirement that a party initiate a 1631 transfer. The burden to initiate transfer l is placed upon the court and that requirement is mandatory as l the use of the word "shall" denotes: .....the court shall* if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or. appeal courts have been brought.....
- emphasis supplied 28 U.S.C. 1631 (West's 1983)
Indeed every requirement of 1631 was satisfied in the District Court's findings. First, the revised memorandum issued on July 12th found that there was a want of jurisdiction for each of the issues raised by Appellants who were Plantiff s below.
~ > f. 4 ( ,.? ?f 11 - Judge Penn noted orally upon the record that the case raisedskrioussafetyissues. Further, there was a clear i understanding that Appellants,had. bro.ught their case in District Court based upon.~ he-jurisdictional rule. established t by the Court:of Appeals in the first Lorion case Lorion v. NRC 712 F. 2'd l'4 7 2 (1983). ~ The opinion of the Court.of 1.ppeal.% in Lorion found that initial jurisdic~ tion. to review those informa!., unilateral agency actions where $here was no hearing, known as Directors Decisions, was in the Distr,ict Court. 'Because the declaration of no hazard by the staff.in this case represented an even I je more abbreviated agency proceeding than a Directors Decision, l Appellants logically reasoned-that jurisdiction for their i l appeal of the "no hazard" declaration lay in the District Court because that was then the law of this circuit. The Couqt and the parties were well aware of Appellants I reliance on Lorion Id., and there was a general recognition of the. conflict the Court of Appeals decision in Lorion had created among the circuits that was ultimately,to be. res.1ved in the Suprime, Court. The.. interests of justice dictated that \\ Judge Penn should?have transferred the case under 1631. This view is borne out by the existing cbse low on the subj'ect : Where the labor department riisled a claimant concern-ing the circuit having jurisdiction to reclew his petition, a 1631 transfer 3nus ap'propriate. See Slatick v. U.S. Dept. of Labor 698 F.2d,433,. Also see IIempstead County and Nevada County b
( ( ( v. U.S.E.P.A. 700 F.2d 459 (1983) where a fact situation similar to the one presented here prompted the court to conclude, "that this matter is precisely the situation Congress contemplated when it enacted 1631". Thus this court has jurisdiction to hear and resolve this case on its merits. Af ter Ms. Lorion's four year " Bleak liouse" she deserves that review. f Respectfully Submitted, \\ \\ t [tt ( ~ / l Martin II. Itodder 1131 N.E. 86 Street Miami, Fl. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Attorney for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette Lorion P April 1, 1985 l
[= ~ l s / ( ( -( s UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY INC., ) and JOETTE LORION, ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION, ) Case No-84-5570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) and FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ) ) Appellees. ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Reply Brief for Appellants in the above captioned proceeding have been served upo. 1e persons listed below by depositing the copies in the United Stsces Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on'the date shown below. Harold F. Reis, Esq. Edward J. Shawaker, Esq. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Dirk D. Snel, Esq. 1615 L. Street N.W. Land & Natural Resources Div. Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Norman A. Coll, Esq. Steel Hector & Davis 4000 SE Financial Center Miami,-Fl. 33131-2398 Michael Blume, Esq. Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J hf Washington, D.C. 20555 o Martin H. Hodder 1131 NE 86 Street Miami, F1. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Attorney for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette Lorion DATED: APRIL 1, 1985
/ + k Attatchment A - 1 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUESTS FR NOTICE DATE AMENDMENT NOS. DATE OF ISSUANCE
- 1. NO NOTICE, EMERGENCY AMENDMENT 95 & 89 August 31, 1983 This was an emergency license amendment issued to Turkey Point Unit #3,
and finally to Unit increase of radioactive iodine in the primary coolant of the r#4, which Licensee and Staff may have considered the possibility that eactors. use of a new fuel core design operating at higher temperatures, coupled their future with use'of more highly enriched uranium fuel, (both parts of the vessel flux reduction program) would require higher limits on radioactive iodine in the reactor core. 2. 48 FR 33080 July 20, 1983 98 & 92 December 9, 1983 These amendments changed the technical specifications to allow the Licensee to utilize a new optimized fuel assembly (OFA) design in the Turkey Poi t reactor cores. n 100% power, while using dummy fuel rods around the outside of core to cut down on the amount of radiation damage to the reactor pressure vessel walls. FPL could not have operated at their vessel flux reduction program, without 100% power, while implementing these amendments.
- 3. 48 FR 45862 October 7,1983 99 & 93 December 23, 1983 These amendments involved technical specification changes designed to FPL's " integrated program for vessel flux reduction".
support The changes allowed FPL to place dummy fuel rods around the outside of the(see FR no reactor core, while pushing the fuel toward the center. allowed the core to run hotter and decreased the safety margin of the reactor These amendments core.
- 6. 49 FR 25360 June 20, 1984 103 & 109 September 5, 1984 These amendments allowed the Licensee to utilize mor, 235 in the reactor core and in the spent highly enriched uranium fuel pool s 3 rage facility. The enrichment in uranium was necessary to make up for t; c loss of reactivity caused by the " dummy" fuel core design, which was implemented as part of the FPL Flux Reduction Program outlined in their March 25,1983, letter (At tatchment A).
- 5. 49 FR 45514 June 7, 1984 111 & 115 November 21, 1984 These amendments allowed the Licensee to store more highly enriched uranium I
235 fuel in the new spent in certain storage processes. fuel storage racks and reduced the margin of safety
Attacchment A - 2 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUESTS 6. On February 15. 1985. In a letter from J.W. Willinms. FPL Ca.. en Mr. Eisenhut. Division of Licensine. NRC. the Licensee requested an amendment to reduce the Moderator Temperature Coefficient for the Turkey Point nuclear reactors. Neither the NRC Staf f, nor Appellants cxperts have analyzed the amendment request in depth, but it appears on first examination, to consist of another increment in the flux reduction program.
/ ... k. *...(.
- .nL':%... s.
. r s'.dC..? & Me-,z,, t9g3 .a L-23-;63 .. 4 Attatchment B Of fice c' Nuclear Reactor Regulation March 25, 1983 letter Attenticn: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Cntef coerating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washi ngton, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Varga :
Re: Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Dockr.t Nos. 50-250, 50-251 Dressurized Thermal Shock .n. Your letter dated February 1,1983 requested tnat we suomit :ne infonmation 4(g presented in our January 26, 1983 meeting regarding our plans anc scneaules to r resolve pressurized Tnermal Snock at Turkey Point Units 3 $ *. Tne at:acn. q(jqsq() ments adcress our presentation and contain tne information rec.es ec in your letter. j . ~~ Attacnment A: Present Plant Status j At:acnment 5: Vessel Flux Recuction Progran Attacnment C: Assessment of Safety P.argins -? A::acnment 0: Transient Analyses
- F' !
Atta nment E: Survetilance Program I We were also re;uested to address now mucn relief -oule 7e neesssary -itn respec: tc :lan: safety limits to allow continuec fuli power ::t a:icn. Inis . j relief -culd consicer the fuel management necessary to recuce C.x to acateve
- ci
!ne end-of life operation without exceeding tne screening criteria. assistance we -ecuested from the NRC fell into tnree oroad ca:a;; ries: }.9. .Mst..-/ 1. o". P '. :Poo3v L l.55% % l.= We c'. a n on ce -f o rmi ng our pl a nt.saer_i f.ic. treas s em% s e s.- 1; ri ng tne RETRan Coce. Tais Code nas oeen recently suomittee of a.se 's ;eaua for N46 revien enc approval. We request a cuict reyten o f ? [~ L t'. o pr ev e r.t us fras expen:ing manpower uttit zing a code tnat may not :s 1 ceptacle o t ce 'AC. -e request tnat tne NRC provice at less a pr?i'* *
- ary opinion p ()C/
cf tne user's Gecup suomittal oy May !7o3". a 2. EXTENSION OF TECHNIC AL SPECIFIC ATION LIMITS K Based on our preliminary evaluations, e foresee no neec f;r Appencix exempticns or relaxations. However, to acnteve :ne cesire: 'iux recuction in Tu-tey Point Unit 3, Cycle 9, scneculed o star: operat: n in early 8303300301 930325 PDR ADOCK 05000250 P PDR 1:' i 21 I k
t ( { ( f Decesoer 1983, an increase in ene F Itatt u.
- n, recnnical Speci fic at t om.:
g pur I t et ti n9 re4Wcclant.h. a i is required. To acnt eve tne nigner F3g.ettnout in tne F 1tmlt, we need a p prov a l of tne tmproved i i r i n (1 nne too l;.. . a-a isrecI.rtree'oyd.g'*O 0 / (8AR aTready s uomilt EU oy We s t i ngnou s e. fnts arocaval ~ Aug 1,1983, to support our anticipated Tecnnical Spect fication ameTdmenc to increase tne FaH limit in a timely manner petor to startup of Cycle 9. Approval of tne westingnouse Hign tiurnupAf gal is also needeo l in 1983. Approval or a Teenniemi_ w cifirnrisn enange to increase tne ' eMnment Itmit for ene Turkey Point tlnir a Cycle 10_ fSpe t na '19_84) wil l be dependent upon tnat approval. ~ t s of the' in future cycles it may be necessary to increase F Westinghouse Improved Thermal Design Procedure (ITON)parame er a for wif en generic NRC approval has already been ootained. A longer term topical which needs NRC approval, and witen will greatly af fect FPL's flux reduction ef fort is the Advanced LOCA Reflood Nodel (BASH). 3. FORMULATION OF ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Scheduled to be submitted in 1983. We plan on focusing tne bulk of our ~, l J j. ~, ef forts on flux reduction to the reactor vessel inner wall. However, we-intend on submitting plant speci fic analyses to justify operation past tne --.. i 3,.. screening criterion, snould our oest ef fort at flux reouctiott-h.. P 300*F RT y not be abe to coupletely limit the increase in RTNOT. Therefore, e for tnese plant;--
- Cequest that NRC expeditiously develop acceptance criteria specific analyses.
These criteria should include acceptacle transient % M prodaniltti(s as well as analytical pressure, tenperature and fracture c' - seggyA
- ~ c
.~. mecnanic results. ' *MKp.Qygn. We appreciated the opportunity to present our plans to your staf f and. look'gb. forward to working actively witn you in tne future. We will continue to I conmunicate the results of our wort to you as our ef fort progresses...e e q{gg j j Very - ly yours, Rober E. Uhr is Vice President Advanced Systens & Tecnnology 1 REU/JEM/js Attachments t cc: J. P. O'Reilly, Region II Harold F. Feis. Esquire P NS-1. I 154-1 i I !A
ATTACHtiENT B k. VESSEL FLUX REDUCTION PROGRA.* 6 k {.;. t l M a /
( Table of Contents - 1. Purpose and Objective 2. Dimension of Flux Reduction Require-.en: 3. Turkey Point Operating History and P2.,s - 4 Flux Reduction Achieved to Date 5. Near-term Flux Reduction Plans 6. Long-term Flux Reduction Plans 7. Schedule Y e 1. e b { } e
i ( Near Term Flux k _ac ion Plans In the second-half of 1932. with the establishment of the screening criteria, the limiting fluence became known and flux reduction became more urgent. Because materials were already in process for the next reloads, further modifications to the Cycle 9 designs were evaluated which did not entait change to the fue! loading. Time constraints limited changes to the Uni: 4 Cy -le 9 design to those which fell within existing operating margins. As will be seen in subsequent sections of this report, increases in operating margin are required for Unit 3 in time to allow more extensive changes in its Cycle 9 design. The annual Cycle 9 Unit 4 design now has no time to be cha.nged but has a radial power of 0.32 on the core !!ats which is about the same as modifications :o the 13 mon h cycle could have achieved. As a general potnt, annua! c.cies can achieve lower vesse! !!ux ieveis because of -he greater inheren: :oera:ing margin :o LOCA and DNB lims:s. The lower nur.ber of f eed asse-s!.ies increases :he designers !!exibill:y in shif:ing power away from the core flats. The switch to the an...a! Unit 4 Cycle 9 has caused the Cycle !O re! cad to s: art the design process now. This design assumes increased opera:ing margins and will imp!e ent flux reduc-ion fea:ures described :n :his section. Cycle 10 is now planned to start in May 1934 and w 11 be an 13 mon:h cycle. A portion of the design flexibility associated with annual cveles can be obtained by moving to higher assembly discharge burnups (fe v r feed l' a ssemblies). Achievement of high burnups and NRC approva! of the high burnup topicals submit;ed by the fuel vendors in 1932 is seen as a high l l M*MMAM~~ULM^MMG3;C72mfMKWSmWMMt965I".W232*NEF]M
( / k ( priority with respect to flux reduction. The Unit 4 13 month Cycle 9 design was used for the near-term !!ux reduction fuel management studies. Conclusions resulting from these studies are generally applicable to any 13 month Tarkey Point cycle. Figure 5.1 summarizes the anticipated current magnitude of flux reduction. The previous Cycle 9 design, and iesine equivalent core designs in the future, would cause the screening criteria to be reached in August 1995. Switching [ to dummy assemblies would be needed eight years from now if no other actions were to be taken.. Translating these limitations to flux, Fig. 5.2 i!!ustrates the flux levels versus azimuthal angle which cannot be exceeded (on the average) to avoid reaching the screening criterion. These flux limits assume the 4% reduction in historical flux level due to the corrected axial shape. Even with increases in operating margin, the time required te implement exotic assembly designs or materials constrain the near te m solutions to /T "o f f-tn e-sh e!!" materials and standard assemb!y designs. The options considered for near term implementation on the core flats were spent fue! i (lowest reactivity), fresh full or part length burnable absorcers, part length control rods installed on burnable poison spiders, and assemblies containing natural or depleted uranium, f The radial power impact of the two most simple changes compar to the previous Ccyle 9 design are provided in Figs. 5.3 and 5.4 The case of low reactivity fuel and burnable poisons is anticipated to achieve the majority of NE E5'MMbWYRWd6 Md_MMMMQQ'Af
( ( ( needed flux reductions. The burnable poisons (Fig. 3.4) used in the study were full length. The small axial exten of needed !!ux reduction, however, ' indicates that part length poison rods can be just as e!!ective with a lesser decrease in overall radial power. Part length bps would, therefore, assist in mitigating the loss in operating margin for a given level of !!ux reduction. The impact of the near term design changes on the axial power shapes is i!!ustrated in Fig. 5.5. The use of spent fuel on :he core flats has a large advantage compared to tne generic power shape by shif ting the powers upwards, away from the critical weld in addition to the expected reduction in 0 axial peaking. This factor results in about a 10% decrease in critical weld flux in addition to the decrease in radial power. Combining the radial powers and the axial shaoes results in the powers p!oned in Fig. 5.6. The expected impact of implementing these changes is given in Fig. 5.7. The design changes planned for C de 9 of Unit 3 and Cycle 10 of Unit 4 correlate with Curve C on Fig. 3.7 which indi< ates that the 2W. Assuming no further screening criterion would be reached in Auep: changes, dummy assemblies could be used beginning.n 2001 to reach licensed Liietime. i These changes, however, are not without penalty. Increases in hot spo peaking (_F,g) and radial channel peaking (F a ti) are expected. In addition, compared to designs without these changes, core reactivity is lost. In future cycles, this will be recovered by increasing the amount of U-235 load <ff in the These penalties are summarized in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 lists the core. expected RTNDT values associated with the near te-m design changes. l* b
~. ( i Florida Power & Light intends to.m:>1ement the most ef f ective of these design changes. Near-term a pprd ais. however, of topicals, technical specification changes and licensinit analyses are required by third quarter 1933 for the following items. High-burnup topical Enrichment limit on fuel sterace Analyses for higher F H operating limit 3 Analyses for higher LOCA (Fq) operating limit. i l 9 I i 1 i I .j d i h t 4,d*, E g I
e-, ,-_.mgrw,- g w e ov-,- O e
- D e j* p
?e7 4 L e
i BRIEF FOR FEDERAL APPELLEES UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUt1BIA CIRCUIT No. 84-5570 t CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, INC., et al. Appellants, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!31ISSION, et al. Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HERZEL H. E. PLAINE F. HENRY HABICHT II General Counsel Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM H. BRIGGS, JR. Solicitor EDWARD J.SHAUAKER DIRK D. SNEL E. LEO SLAGGIE Attorneys Deputy Solicitor Land and Natural Resources Division c4 MICHAEL B. BLUME U.S. Department of Senior Attorney Justice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20530 Commission Washington, DC 20555 April 5, 1985 C.A. No. 83-3570
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Nature Of The Case.............................. 1 s 2. Statutory And Regulatory Framework.............. 2 3., The Turkey Point Amendment Proceeding........... 9
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT.................................. 20 ARGUMENT............................................. 22 1. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over 22 This Appeal Because Appellants Failed To Notice Their Appeal Within Sixty Days Of The District Court Judgment Dismissing Their Action 2. The District Court Correctly Held That It 28 Lacked Jurisdiction To Review The NRC Licensing Actions At Issue In This Case 3. Appellants Cannot Complain To This Court 33 That The District Court Refused To Transfer This Action Under 28 U.S.C. S 1631 4 The NRC Staff Correctly Found That The 36 Amendments To The Turkey Point Operating License Involved No Significant Hazards considerations CONCLUSION...........'................................ 43
i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page A. Judicial Decisions Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)........................................ 40 Bellotti v. NRC, 233 U.S. App. D.C. 274, 725 F.2d 1380 (1983).............................. 42 Billops v. Department of the Air Force, 725 F.2d 1160 (8th Cir. 1984)..................... 34 Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257 (1978)................. 24 Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973)............ 37 Carstens v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, __ U.S. App. D.C. __, 742 F.2d 1546 (1984)... 3, 40, 41 Center for Nuclear Responsibility v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 586 F. Supp. 579 (D.D.C. 1984)........................................ 2, 22, 23 Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984)......... 26 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)........................... 37 City of Rochester v. Bond, 195 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 603 F.2d 927 (1979)...................... 31 City of West Chicago v. NRC, 542 F.Supp. 13 Til.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd,~751 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983).................................... 31 D.C. Federation of Civic Assns. v. Vo le, 172 l U.S. App. D.C. 51, 520 F.2d 453 (1975)........ 27 Denberg v. U.S.R.R. Retirement Bd., 696 F.2d 1193 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 1706 (1984)........................................ 32
( Page Deukmejian v. NRC, (1984TT.......pp. D.C......... 57....... 37 U.S. A 751 F.2d 1287 Ecology Action v. Atomic Energy Commission, 492 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1974)................... 5 Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 453 (1972)................ 41 Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1983)............................ 24 Honicker v. Hendrie, 465 F.Supp. 414 (M.D. Tenn.) aff'd, 605 F.2d 556 (Table) (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1072 (1980)..... 33 Investment Company Institute v. Board of Governors, 179 U.S. App. D.C. 311, 551 F.2d 1270 (1977).............................. 31 Johnston v. Reily, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 6, 160 F.2d 249 (1947)............................... 34 Lorion v. NRC, 229 U.S. App. D.C.
- 440, 712 F.2d 1472 (1983), rehearing denied (September 23, 1983), cert. granted, 104 S. Ct. 1676 (1984).......................
9, 29, 30 McKart v. U.S., 395 U.S. 185 (1969)........... 33 Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S. App. D.C.
- 367, 384 F.2d 319 (1967)...........................
34, 35 North Anna Environmental Coalition v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 174 U.S. App. D.C.
- 428, 533 F.2d 655 (1976)...........................
3 Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 461 F.Supp. 384 (D. Del. 1978)............................ .35 Power Reactor Development Corp. v. Electrical Union, 367 U.S. 396 (1961).................... 5 Rockford League of Women Voters v. NRC, 679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1982)................. 9, 32 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. I:endrie, 502 F.Supp. 408 (D.D.C 1980).................... 31 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC, 223 U.S. App. D.C. 288, 690 F.2d 1675 (1982).... 9
-t r Page Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, -~ 209 U.S. App. 59, 651 F.2d 780 (1980), rehearing en banc denied, 651 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. T981), vacated and remanded, 459 U.S. 1194 (1983), vacated, 706 F.2d 1229 (Table) (1983).................................. 6 Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission, 130 U.S. App. U.C. 307, 400 F.2d 778 (1968).............. 3 Simmons v. Arkansas Power and Light Co., l 655 F.2d 131 (8th Cir.-1981).................. 33 Sun Enterprises.v. Train, 532 F.2d 280 (2d Cir. 1975)......................................... 31 Susquehanna Valley Alliance v. Three Mile Island Reactor, 619 F.2d 231 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1096 (1981)............ 31 United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157 (1936)........................................ 35 United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216 (1973)........................................ 25, 26 United States v. Pickney, 177 U.S. App. D.C. 423, 543 F.2d 908 (1967)...................... 34
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978)........................................
passim Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans, 3"79 U.S. 411 (1965)........................... 31 STATUTES i 5 U. S. C. S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( 2. ).......................... 36 28 U.S.C. 51331............................... 30 I 28 U.S.C. $ 14 0 6 ( a )............................ 35 28 U.S.C. 51631............................... 21, 33, 34 28 U.S.C. 52341-51............................ 28 i
s s i 28U.S.C.52342(4)...........................5, 2 8 j 42 U.S.C. 52235............................... 3 l. 42 U.S.C. S2239............................... passim ( l 42 U.S.C. S4321-61............................ 31 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ru l e 4 ( a )..................................... 24, 25, 1 27 F Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58..... 25, 26 Federal Rules of Civil brocedure, Rule 59..... 27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 )................................. 27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79(a).. 25 NRC REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. S 2.104............................. 4 10 C.F.R. S 2.105............................. 4, 9 10 C.F.R. S 2.206............................. 30, 32, 38, 41 10 C.F.R. S 2.714............................. 4 l 10 C.F.R. S 2.764............................. 5 l 10 C.F.R. 5 2.785............................. 4 l 10 C.F.R. S 2.786............................. 4 l 10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. A...................... 4 l 10 C.F.R. S 50.91................. .......... 8, 9, 37 I l I l .. -, _ _ _. ~
s 6 Page 10 C.F.R. S 50.92............................. 7, 14, 17, 39 10 C.F.R. S 51.4.............................. 18 10 C.F.R. S 51.5.............................. 15, 41 MISCELLANEOUS 6A Moore's Federal Practice 1 58.04 [4-1] (1972)....................................... 26 7 Moore's Federal Practice 1 60.2?[3] (1974). 27 Pub. L. No. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (1983), 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in [1982] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3598-3600, 3606-3609.................................... 6 11 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 2785............................. 26 16 Wright, Miller, Cooper and Gressman, Federal Practice at.d Procedure & Jurisdiction S 3943 (1977)................................ 31 S. Rep. No. 113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3592.Z................................. 39 Standards for Determining Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Consideration, 48 Fed. Reg. 14,864, 14,873 (1983)....................................... passim Cases or authorities chiefly tulled upon are marked by asterisks. i
-= s QUESTIONS PRESENTED l 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal in view of appellants' failure to note an appeal until 108 days after the entry of the ordet dismissing their District Court action. l l Assuming this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter, the following issue is also presented. 2. Whether the District Court correctly determined that it l l lacked jurisdiction over appellants' attack on a final NRC l decision, pursuant to section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, that a particular license amendment presented no significant h'azards considerations in view of Congress' clearly expressed statutory directive that such decisions are reviewable solely in courts of appeals. 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(b) and 28 U.S.C. S 2342(4). l l Depending on this Court's resolution of questions 1 and 2, the following issues may also be presented. 1 i 3. Whether the District Court should be reversed for its l failure to transfer appellants' action to a court of appeals i i I [ This case has not previously been before this Court. j Federal appelices are aware of no related cases. l l
r l t pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1631 when such transfer was never i requested of the District court, much less shown to be "in [- the interest of justice." l 4. Whether the NRC correctly characterized, as no significant hazards consideration amendments pursuant to j 42 U.S.C. 52239 (a) (2), certain highly technical license amendments which permitted changes that improved the fuel efficiency of Florida Power & Light Company's Turkey Point nuclear reactors and reduced the risk of pressurized thermal I shock for those reactors. l l i e I i l w-,,v-my -v e .2 m-_,.--.wmy.-,.-- ..-.em--,y,,--,-i.-,,,-,,-n.-,,,,,,-p.y-r.m.w%-w.,.,ww,,,,e-m--,.e-w----,,,,,,y-~,-
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 84-5570 CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, INC., et al. Appellants, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al. Aopellees. 4 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRIEF EOR FEDERAL APPELLEES This brief is submitted by the United States and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" federal appellees"). COUNTERSTATEMENT OF TIIE CASE 1. Nature Of The Case This la an appeal from the Honorable John Garrett Penn's disr.issal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This lawsuit began on :;ovember 29, 1983 when appellants filed their complaint with the United States
l i District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to l enjoin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or "Com-mission") from issuing two sets of license amendments for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4. Appel-l lants contended before the District Court that the NRC's action would violate their rights to a prior adjudicatory hearing and to a complete safety and environmental analysis. The District Court twice denied motions for l temporary restraining orders, on November 30 and December 8, i 1983. It also denied a motion for preliminary injunction l l on January 6, 1984. The NRC issued one set of license amendments for both Unit 3 and Unit 4 on December 9, 1983. It issued the other set, again for both units, on Decem-ber 23, 1983. See 48 Fed. Reg. 56518 (December 21, 1983); 49 Fed. Reg. 3364 (January 26, 1984) (J.A. 168) ("J.A." refers to the Joint Appendix). Holding that judicial review over an NRC amendment action was vested exclusively in the courts of appeals, the District Court dismissed the complaint in a judgment entered April 27, 1984. (J.A. 140). An explanatory Memorandum Opinion followed on May 4. Center for Nuclear Responsibil-ity v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 586 F. Supp. 579 1 (D.D.C. 1984). After the District Court granted federal appellees' motion to correct an erroneous portion of itu I t { 2
e s Memorandum Opinion on June 12 (J.A. 155), this appeal fol-lowed on August 13, 1984. 2. Statutory And Regulatory Framework In enacting the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Con-gress provided for a regulatory format broad in the dis-cretion given to the administrators of the Act, and re-markably free of express restrictions in its charter. Carstens v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 742 F.2d 1546, 1551 (D.C. Cir. 1984), quoting Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission, 400 F.2d 778, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1968); see also North Anna Environmental Coalition v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 533 F.2d 655, 658-59 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The NRC's process for initial licenses for power reactors is two-stage. In the first stage of reviews, the NRC staff determines whether an applicant should be au-thorized to construct a power plant. See 42 U.S.C. S 2235. At the second stage, the staff evaluates whether the utility should be permitted to operate the facility to generate electricity. Thereaftur, the NRC issues amendments, when required, over the service life of the facility. In section 189 (a) of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress established a hearing framework for these actions. 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a). In the case of a construction permit application, there is a mandatory, prior adjudicatory hearing before a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing 3
o so r Board), generally composed of one lawyer and two technical members. 10 C.F.R. S 2.104. For operating license applica-tions, hearings are granted only when an interested person' timely requests one, and then only on those citerial issues specifically contested by the person. 10 C.F.R. SS 2.105, 2.714. See generally, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. A. In either case the findings and conclusions of the Licensing Board are the agency's initial decision on all contested issues. If further administrative review is sought, a party may appeal to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board"), composed generally of two lawyers and one technical person. 10 C.F.R.S 2.785. Further review is available as a matter of discretion by the five members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10 C.F.R. S 2.786. Uncontested issues are reviewed and resolved by the technical staff. The NRC technical staff exercises this broad responsibility carefully and in a manner designed to I raise and resolve health, safety, and environmental issues relating to license applications, through review of an i applicant's detailed safety and environmental reports. The staff's conclusions are set out in a Safety Evaluation Report ("SER"), in an Environmental Impact Statement where a license is sought initially, and in Supplements to that Environmental Impact Statomont if significantly changed circumstances are found. 4
i All licenses are issued by the Commission based on the adjudicatory record, on the environmental impact state-ment and any supplements, on SERs, and on the staff's review of uncontested issues. 10 C.F.R. S 2.764. Judicial review over final orders in proceedings conducted under section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act is vested exclusively in the courts of appeals. 28 U.S.C. S 2342 (4), 42 U.S.C. S 2239(b); see Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 525-27 and n. 5 (1978); Power Reactor Development Corp. v. Electrical Union, 367 U.S. 396 (1961); Ecology Action v. Atomic Encrgy Commission, 492 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1974). Prior to 1980, it was established NRC practice ~ that license amendments could be reviewed and issued by the technical staff along the following lines. If the NRC staff could not find that an amendment involved "no significant hazards consideration," or if it was "in the public inter-est," the staff provided an opportunity for a prior adju-dication before issuing the amendment. If it found "no significant hazards consideration" the staff issued the amendment without advance notice and, hence, without an opportunity for a prior hearing. This practice flowed directly from 1962 amendments in which Congress added the third and fourth sentences of what is now section 189 (a) (1). In 1980, this Court held that the NRC could not make an 5
7' ,=. m (~ i u j 8 q q ' 8 amendment immediately effective where chere was an outstand-ing hearin'9 request, even if the amendment involved'"n o significant hazards consideration." Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980). This e-holding drew a strong dissent when the Court rejected the % NRC's suggestion for rehearing en banc. 651 F.2d 792 (1981). Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the question. 451 U.S. 1016 (1981). While Sholly was pending in the Supreme Court, i - Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act to overrule this Court's Sholly decision on this point and to provide, in I section 189 (a) (2), detailed procedures for authorizing issuance of amendments involving no significant hazards considerations notwithstanding the pendency of hearing requests. Pub. L. No. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (1983), 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3598-3600, 3606-3609. In the legislative history,, Congress explained:- Under the conference agreement, the NRC may issue and make imme:liately effective a no significant hazards y consideration amendment to a facility operating license before, holding a hearing upon request of,an interested party.' The Commission may take such action only after j (in all but emergency situations), (1) consulting with the State in which the facility is located, and (2) providing the public with notice of the proposed action l and a reasonable opportunity for comment. s A% 6 /
Id. at 3607-08.1 As required by the 1983 amendment, the NRC pro-mulgated detailed regulations governing the substantive standards for determining whether an amendment involved "no significant hazards consideration," the procedure for giving public notice and soliciting written comments, and the holding of post-issuance hearings. 48 Fed. Reg. 14864, 14873 (April 6, 1983). (S.A. 6, 15) ("S.A." refers to the Statutory Appendix attached to this brief). Under amendments to 10 C.F.R. S 50.92, the NRC generally treats proposed changes as involving no signifi-cant hazards consideration if those actions do not: 1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evalu-ated; or 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated; or ~ 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC provided a series of illustrative examples to aid the public's understanding of the kinds of actions that are within or outside of the "no significant hazards 1Based on the 1983 amendment, both the Supreme Court, 459 U.S. 1194 (1983), and the D.C. Circuit, 706 F.2d 1229 (Table) (1983), vacated as moot and remanded the Sholly case. 7
consideration" category. See 48 Fed. Reg. at 14870, cols. 2 and 3 (S.A. 12). Although the NRC is not required to conduct a prior adjudicatory hearing on demand, the NRC does publish Fe.deral Regis-ter notices of applications received each month which, in the staff's view, involve no significant hazards considerations. 10 C.F.R. S 50.91; 48 Fed. Reg. at 14879 (April 6,1983).2 The notice summarizes the action proposed by the utility and provides a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff of whether the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Id. If the staff assessment indicates that the amendment involves no signifi-cant hazards consideration, the notice also statt.s that the staff intends to issue the amendment without further review of the no significant hazards consideration question unless a request for a hearing (including, normally, comments on the proposed action) is received within thirty days of publication. 10 C.F.R. S 50.91 (a) (2), (3). (S.A. 21). If a hearing request is received, the NRC staff addreases the issues raised in the request in its final assessment of whether the application involves any significantf.azards 2 In some cases, individual applications may be noticed. In cases of " emergencies" or " exigent circumstances," these notice requirements can be waived or modified. See 10 C.F.R. S 50.91 (a) (5), (6). (S.A. 21). ) 8
_~ ~. consideration. If so, the matter will be set for a prior hearing; if not, a final "no significant hazards consid-eration" finding is published in the Federal Register, the amendment is issued based upon the staff's review of the merits of the amendment in a Safety Evaluation Report ("SER"), and any requested hearing is held thereafter. 10 C.F.R. SS 2.105 (a) (4), 50.91 (a) (4 ) ; 48 Fed. Reg. at 14879 (April 6, 1983) (S.A. 21). 3. The Turkey Point Amendment Proceeding On its merits, this case involves two sets of NRC license amendments sought by and issued to Florida Power and Light Co. ("FP&L") for its Turkey Point reactors. These 3The NRC also provides an informal process whereby any ~ person may request institution of enforcement proceedings against any licensee. 10 C.F.R. S 2.206. If the petition is denied, the appropriate NRC official will set forth the basis for the denial in a written decision. Prior to a 1983 decision in a case coincidentally brought by appellant Joette Lorion, judicial review of these decisions had taken place exclusively in the courts of appeals. Compare, e.g. Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC, 690 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and Rockford League of Women Voters v. NRC, 679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1982) with Lorion v. NRC, 712 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. granted, U.S. 104 S. Ct. 1676 (1984) (argued on October 29, 1984, decision pending). 4The Turkey Point reactors are the third and fourth units at a power station also incorporating two fossil fuel plants. The reactors are located on the Atlantic Coast about 25 miles south of Miami. Before they were licensed to operate in 1972 and 1973, respectively, FP&L and the NRC [ Footnote Continued] 9
_n._., [ amendments were authorized by the NRC on December 9 and 23, 1983. The first set of amendments allowed use of new fuel assemblies and core reconfiguration. The second set of amendments modified operational limits to account for the improved neutronic characteristics of the new fuel design, to make the reactor more efficient, and to account for j l operation with new steam generators. In addition, the core reconfiguration and operational limits were accomplished in a manner consistent with the ongoing program to resolve for l l Turkey Point a generic problem known as pressurized thermal i shock (" PTS"). 1 l l l [ Footnote Continued] staff completed comprehensive safety and environmental analyses. The plants are virtually identical pressurized water reactors designed by Westinghouse. Because of their similar design and operational characteristics, FP&L often seeks, and the NRC completes action on, amendments for both reactors at the same time. SWhat is at issue in this case is the NRC's issuance of specific no significant hazards consideration amendments, not PTS and its potential significance to nuclear power plants. Besides being irrelevant to the issues before the Court, appellants' apocalyptic description of the PTS problem and its history is exaggerated, to say the least.
- Sen, e.g., Appellants' Brief at 9-10.
For example, appellants' assertion that the Turkey Point " pressure vessel is likely to crack from thermal shock if a minor malfunction requires the use of standard emergency cooling procedures" Appellants' Brief at 10 (emphasis added), is flatly wrong. First, the Commission has concluded that none of the pressure vessels for plants currently licensed to operate are sufficiently embrittled at this time to pose PTS fears now. Second, a PTS event cannot be the result of a " minor" mishap. Several simultaneous and major failures would be necessary to induce such an event. 10 i ~,-
~ =n. r. n -A conventional nuclear power reactor produces heat by the controlled nuclear fission of slightly enriched uranium. The reactor fuel core is contained in a large cylindrical.shell, known as the pressure vessel. In this reservoir, water is channelled around and through the nuclear core to remove the large amount of heat generated by the nuclear chain reaction. The fission products from the chain reaction are largely-confined in the zircalloy-clad I fuel rods mounted in an appropriate configuration in the core. Neutrons released by the chain reaction are absorbed in the core, in the water surrounding the core, and in l structural materials including the pressure vessel itself. It is essential that the pressure vessel and its associated. piping, known as the primary system, maintain their integri-ty to assure continued cooling of the reactor core. In pressurized water reactors ("PWR") such as the Turkey Point units, the heated water from the primary system passes through steam generators, where the heat is trans-ferred to water circulating in the secondary system. Secondary system coolant water then turns to steam, which. ultimately turns a turbine that drives generators of elec-tricity. For a typical PWR, the reactor vessel is tough enough to withstand the high radiation environment and temperature and pressure during the thirty to forty-year service life. However, results from a reactor vessel 11
m m ;; - - - --n_,_~. =.n,=: =- O surveillance program indicated that certain older operating PWRs were fabricated with materials that tend to lose some of their toughness after comparatively short periods of exposure to the neutrons created by the chain reaction. This process is known as embrittlement, and principally affects pressure vessel welds with copper or nickel content. In the late-19'/Os, it was recognized that these vessels could potentially experience a phenomenon known as pressurized thermal shock (" PTS"). If an embrittled reactor vessel is subjected to abrupt reduction in temperature by introduction of large volumes of cold water, while at the same time the primary system pressure remains high, the vessel is exposed to severe stress and may approach its limits of strength. This might happen, for example, if a primary coolant pipe breaks, causing the emergency core cooling system to actuate, injecting a large volume of cool water into the reac?Jr vessel when the system pressure is high. In theory, the resulting severe temperature changes and pressure in the system could cause an embrittled reactor vessel to rupture, although an event of sufficient severity to cause such a rupture has never occurred. The NRC staff has concluded that as long as the fracture resistance of a reactor vessel remains high, such over-cooling /high pressure incidents will not cause vessel failure. 12 l
m n n =:.:===== =- - ~ = - -n e The staff has encouraged utilities to find ways to retard the embrittlement process'so that pressure vessels will be assured of retaining adequate strength throughout the service life of the reactor. The NRC staff has decided that the most immediately effective way to minimize embrittlement and to extend the life of the pressure vessel is to reduce the bombardment of fission neutrons, or " flux," at certain areas of the vessel wall. The program at Turkey Point is aimed at reducing the flux at the peripheral weld seams (welds in the middle of the vessel which are particu-larly susceptible to embrittlement) and at producing more uniform " fluence" (" fluence" is the flux absorbed over a length of time) by the end of the service life of the plant. The two sets.of license amendments for Turkey Point -- two groups of amendments for each unit -- were consistent with these goals. By a letter dated June 3, 1983 and supplemented on November 16, 1983, FP&L asked permission to begin the use of a new fuel design and configuration for 6Reducing the power level of a reactor - "derating" -- can also extend the calendar time of operation for a vessel. However, performance is measured in " effective full power years," the total amount of energy produced by the plant during a given time period, such as a year or a plant The 'oal of the staff is to extend the number of lifetime. g effective full power years by slowing the embrittlement process and distributing the flux effects more uniformly in the vessel. 13
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. This fuel design is now being used in most if not all Westinghouse PWRs, at least in part because it increases the efficiency of the reactor. Westinghouse has largely discontinued manufacture of the previous design. It should be recognized that the specific actions authorized by the amendments, i.e., changes associated with a reconfiguration of the reactor core, involved straight-forward and thoroughly understood processes. In July 1983 the staff decided that, barring some new circumstance, the reconfiguration amendments involved "no significant hazards consideration" because the fuel design itself was similar to designs in use at other facilities, and because there were no significant changes made in the overall safety of the reactor under the standards in 10 C.F.R. S 50.92. This set of amendments and proposed no significant hazards consid-eration finding were noticed in the Federal Register, offering interested persons thirty days in which to request a hearing. 48 Fed. Reg. 33076, 33080 (July 20, 1983) (J.A. 160, 162). No hearing-request was received in response to this notice, and the amendments were issued on December 9, 14
~ 1983 on a final finding that they involved "no significant hazards consideration." The NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report ("SER") \\ l for the reconfiguration amendments provides a detailed assessment of potential accidents and concludes that the reconfiguration amendments do not present a substantial risk to the public health and safety. Moreover, because the amendments do not authorize any change in magnitude or type of effluent release, nor any increase of power level, nor any other effect which would have a significant environ-1 mental impact, the NRC staff concluded, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 51.5 (d) (4), that no environmental impact statement ("EIS") or negative declaration and appraisal was required 'in connection with these amendments. SER at 21-22. (J.A. 112, 113). In effect, the environmental impact of these amendments is bounded by those impacts considered in the evaluation done for the facility when operation was originally authorized. 7 NRC rules provide that a final "no significant hazards consideration" finding'need not be made unless a request for a hearing is received. In this case, because the first set of amendments had not issued, the staff, in its discretion, chose to make the determination on the first set as part of its response to comments submitted by plaintiffs on the second set of amendments. Aside from the other defects associated with this appeal, this first set of amundments per_ se is not properly before the Court because appellants [ Footnote Continued] 15
On August 19, 1983, FP&L proposed a second set of amendments for Turkey Point -- again, one group for each unit -- to change the operational limits of the reactors, accounting for the new fuel design's characteristics and potential efficiencies, and for new steam generators. In the Federal Register on October 7, 1983, the staff noticed the application for the second set of amendments; it also offered in that notice its tentative finding of no significant hazards consideration, the basis for that finding, and an opportunity for hearing. 48 Fed. Reg. 45862. (J.A. 162). The staff noted that the second set of amendments covered four types of changes: (1) an increase to the hot channel limit, (2) an increase to the total heat flux peaking factor, (3) changes to the overpower tempera-ture setpoints, and (4) changes to reflect new steam genera-tors. The first two changes permit portions of the reactor core to be at a higher temperature than they were in the preceding fuel-cycle. In the October 7, 1983 Federal Register notice, 48 Fed. Reg. at 45862, col. 2 (J.A. 162), the staff concluded that the first two types of changes, in accord with example [vi] of " Changes Not Likely To Involve [ Footnote Continued] failed to submit to the NRC a timely request for a hearing on them. 16
Significant Hazards Considerations," 48 Fed. Reg, at 14870, col. 3 (S.A. 12), were within the overall margins of safety previously analyzed for the reactors, were to be balanced by more restrictive limits in other areas, and thus were not significant changes under 10 C.F.R. S 50.92. The staff concluded that the third type of change, which required more uniform temperatures and thus constitut-ed a safety improvement, was: similar to example [iil of " Changes Not Likely To Involve Significant Hazards Considerations": A change .that constitutes an additional limitation or control not presently included in the technical specifications: for example, a more stringent surveillance require-ment.... The changes... are all in the conservative direction and constitute a more stringent limitation. 48 Fed. Reg. at 45862, col. 3 (October 7, 1983) (J. A. 162), quoting 48 Fed. Reg. at 14870, col. 3 (April 6, 1983) (S.A. 12). The fourth change accounted for the use of new steam generators which allow more secondary coolant to contact the heated primary system water. The heat exchange between the primary and the secondary systems occurs as primary system water passes over pipes carrying secondary coolant. Over time these tubes sometimes dent or fracture, and they need to be plugged or replaced. The old steam generators were repaired and the damaged t'ubes replaced. Of this fourth type of change the staff concluded that: i L 17
The deletion of the technical. specifications relating to the old steam generators is similar to example (v) .of " Changes Not Likely To Involve Significant Hazards Considerations": Upon satisfactory completion of construction in connection with an operating facili-ty... relief [is] granted from an operating restriction that was imposed because the construction was not yet completed satisfactorily. This.is intended to involve (relaxation of] re-strictions [ imposed during construction] where it is justified (when] construction has been completed satis-factorily. The deletions requested are to remove the restrictions placed on the use of the old steam genera-tors with tubes plugged in excess of five (5) per-cent....[Because the new steam generators. function satisfactorily), the restrictions placed on the old steam generators are no longer applicable.... 48 Fed. Reg. at 45862, col. 3, 45863, col. 1 (Oct. 7, 1983) (J.A. 162, 163), quoting 48 Fed. Reg. 14870, col. 3 (April 6, 1983) (S.A. 12). In summary, the October 7, 1983 notice made clear-that the staff viewed this second set of amendments as con-tributing to the protection of the reactor against the possibility of pressurized thermal shock, rather than as raising significant new safety issues. On November 4, appellants filed both a timely request for a hearing and a number of comments on the second set of amendments, the technical specification changes. On December 23, 1983, the NRC staff issued the second set of amendments in a final "no significant hazards consideration" finding supported by a detailed SZn, and a determination under 10 C.F.R. S 51.4 (d) of no environmental 18
impact. SER at 13-14. (J.A. 137, 138). The SER explained that although there would be higher temperatures in portions of the core, there would not be additional heat overall, and thus no attendant increases in pressure and temperature stresses. In addition, new steam generators allowed more primary / secondary coolant interaction and better temperature control. In all, the staff found that all changes were safely within the previously analyzed operational limits for Turkey Point. SER at 5-8 (J.A. 129-132). Appellants' hearing petition was referred to a Licensing Board, which is now holding hearings on the second set of imendments. In the interim, appellants requested the District court, and now request this Court, to nullify the NRC's actions on the amendments and the "no significant hazards consideration" determinations. Complaint (Nov. 29, 1983), Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time..., at 2 (Dec. 29, 1983); Brief for Appellant at 2-3, 32 (Jan. 28, 1985). 8 The staff analyzed the effects of the changes on postulated accidents involving loss of reactor coolant. Using elaborate computer models, the NRC staff predicted that under accident conditions, the reactor as changed by the amendments would remain within previously calculated and accepted limits. The NRC staff assumes a conservative approach toward safety questions and builds safety margins into its calculations, such that the plant is, in fact, safer than the calculations show. Minor changes in one [ Footnote Continued) 19
O
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT a Appellants have appealed from a District Court order which dismissed their action. However, Appellants' l notice of appeal was filed 108 days after the entry of this order. Because a notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days of the order or judgment from which an appeal is taken, and because thi's time limit l's mandatory and juris-dictional, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Assuming that this Court determines that it has jurisdiction to review this appeal, the lower court was correct to dismiss the complaint for lack of District Court jurisdiction. Section 189(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S2239 (b), in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. S2342 (4), provides that proceedings conducted under section 189 (a), 42 U.S.C. S2239 (a), shall be reviewed exclusively in the courts of appeals. Section 189(a) specifically addresses the NRC actions which are at issue in this case. The actions at issue are the NRC's amendment of licenses, and the NRC's determination that the amendments involved no significant hazards consideration, both actions which are specifically listed in section 189(a). [ Footnote Continued] aspect of safety analyses usually do not affect the overall conclusions because of this conservative approach. 20 s
n..... Accordingly, the District Court properly held that section 189(b), in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. 52342 (4), makes the amendments at issue reviewable solely in the courts of appeals. Moreover, the District Court did not err in failing to transfer appellants' action to this Court pursu-ant to 28 U.S.C. S1631. The standard of review for such a claim is whether the District Court abused its discretion. There can be no such abuse of discretion in this case because appellants never requested that the District Court transfer this matter. Indeed, appellants are barred from raising this issue on appeal, because they failed to raise it below. Finally, if this Court reaches the merits of the underlying substantive matter at issue in this case, it should defer to the technical expertise of the NRC. The NRC staff's determination that the Turkey Point license amend-ments at issue involved no significant hazards consideration has a substantial basis in fact and should be upheld. Indeed, appe.llants attack fails to suggest how this deter-mination is even arguably in error. Rather, they launch a confusing attack on the general issue of pressurized thermal shock and ignore the only issue on review, i.e., whether the amendments at issue raise significant, new, unreviewed safety issues. 21
ARGUMENT I. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Appeal Because Appellants Failed To Notice Their Appeal Within Sixty Days Of Entry Of The District Court Judgment Dismissing Their Action Before addressing the jurisdictional and substantive arguments that were before the District Court, this Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over this appeal. By motion of November 5, 1984, federal appellees asked this Court to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. That motion was denied without prejudice on December 19, 1984. We reassert and incorporate that-motion at this time, and we briefly review those jurisdictional arguments here. ~ The federal defendants noved to dismiss appellants' District Court action on the ground that challenges to NRC license amendments are to be heard only in the courts'of appeals. The District Court subsequently issued an order which, "for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion..." granted appellees' ' motion and ordered "that the action be and is dismissed." (J.A. 148). This order was filed and entered on the docket sheet by the clerk of the District Court on April 27, 1984. (J.. A. 148). Not until May 4, 1984, however, did the District Court issue the " accompanying Memorandum Opinion" referred to in the April 27 Order. Center for Nucle.1r 22
~~ .x__,_nw +.n -.n ~.:~ - n:c, - Responsibility v. NRC, 586 F. Supp. 579 (D.D.C. 1984). The May 4 Opinion set forth the District Court's reasons for having earlier dismissed the complaint. In addition to correctly holding that it had no jurisdiction, however, the ~ lower court unnecessarily and erroneously stated in dictum that the Commission's regulations never required the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Id., 586 F. Supp. at 581. On May 14, 1984, the federal defendants filed a Motion to Clarify Opinion which asked the District Court to delete the erroneous and unnecessary dictum from its May 4 Opinion. Obviously, the federal defendants' motion did not seek to disturb in any way the District Court's April 27 Order which dismissed plaintiffs' action. The District Court granted this clarification motion on June 12, 1984, noting that since the, plaintiffs had not responded, "the motion is deemed conceded under Local Rule I-9 (d)." (J.h. 156). On August 13, 1984, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. This notice purports to appeal "from the final order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction entered in this action on June 12, 1984." It is apparent, however, that appellants are appeal-ing the April 27 Order, for that is the District Court judg.aent for defendants which dismissed plaintiffs' 23
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal does not and could not lie from the District Court's June 12 clarifying opinion, which merely deleted a portion of its May 4 Opinion which was unnecessary to the District Court's reasons for dismissine the action on April 27. The procedures for appealing from judgments of district courts are specifically prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As-relevanIt to this litigation, Rule 4 (a) (1) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days "after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from...." Because the time limits provided in Rule 4 (a) (1) are mandatory and jurisdic-tional, failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives a court of appeals of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1983). In this case that 60-day period must run from April 27, 1984, the date of entry of the District Court's order, or judgment, which dismissed this case. Thus, the time within which appellants could note their appeal expired June 26, 1984. Their August 13 notice, filed 108 days after the judgment dismissing their complaint, was 48 days out of time. Because it was filed late, this Court lacks jurisdiction over appellants' appeal. 24
Determining the operative ruling which is to be the judgment upon which an appeal must rest is a simple, straight-forward function, which a unanimous Supreme Court has instructed "must be applied mechanically." United States v. Indre1unas, 411 U.S. 216, 220-22 (1973). The Federal Rules clearly define the judgment or order which begins the running of the 60-day period within which an appeal must be noted. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (a) (6) states that [a] judgment or order is entered within the meaning of Rule 4(a) when it is entered in compliance with Rules 58 and 79 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In turn, Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that "[elvery judgment should be set forth on a separate document." Rule 79(a) describes how the district court clerk must enter court rulings on the " civil docket." Application of these mechanical rules to this case makes it clear that the April 27 Order is-the only order upon which this appeal can rest. It is the only " separate document" which has been entered on the civil docket in accordance with Rule 79 (a). This appeal would be timely if the District Court's May 4, 1984 Opinion were the operative judgment dismissing this case, and if the federal defendants' motion to clarify that opinion (filed within 10 days of that opinion but not the April 27 judgment) were the type of 25
l El i l motion which tolled the time within which this appeal could be noted. However, both necessary prerequisites to such an argument are absent in this case. First, and foremost, the District Court's May 4 Opinion is not a judgment. It does not meet the specific, mechanical requirements of Rule 58 -- it is not a " separate [ document" dismissing this case. Additionally, a court's l " opinion does not constitute its judgment." See 6A Moore I 1 58.02; 11 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 2785. Cf., Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., U.S. 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2781, (1984) ("... [t]his Court reviews judgments, not opinions ..."). Rule 58 clearly requires a court's judgment to be separate from its opinion..Although Rule 58 is formalistic, and must be applied mechanically, commenters have noted that "something like this was needed to make 1 certain when the judgment becomes effective" for iarposes of l appeal and post-judgment motions. 6A Moore 1 58.04 [4-1], quoted with approval in United States v. Indre1unas, 411 l U.S. 216, 220-22 (1973). Moreover, the Advisory Committee comments on the -1963 amendment to Rule 58 also make this point in unmistak-able terms: The amended rule eliminates uncertainties by requiring that there be a judgment set out on a sepa-rate document -- distinct from any opinion or 26
memorandum -- which provides the basis for the entry of the judgment. Id. (Emphasis added). Thus, it is clear that the District Court's May 4 Opinion cannot be the judgment upon which this appeal is based, nor can it be a judgment for purposes of determining the timeliness of a Rule 59 motion which would have extended the time for filing this appeal. Second, even if the May 4 opinion were somehow found to be a judgment, the motion to clarify opinion was not the type of motion which could postpone the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, i.e., one of those listed in Rule 4 (a) (4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. It was instead a motion under Rule 60 (b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to correct a mistake in the opinion which otherwise would need to be corrected on appeal. This is .2 proper motion in this Circuit. See D.C. Fe~deration of Civic Assns. v. Volpe 520 F.2d 451, 453 (D.C. Cir. 1975). See also, 7 Moore 1 60.22[3]. It would be unreasonable to rule that the Motion to Clarify Opinion was a Rule 59 (e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. The April 27 Order of the District Court was entirely favorable to the federal defendants. It provided all of the relief requested in the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. It would be illogical to treat a motion for clarification of an opinion, filed by the 27 l
prevailing party, as a motion to alter or amend a judgreent, since the prevailing party would have no reason to request a modification of a judgment in its favor. For all of the above reasons, and as more fully explained in our November 5, 1984 motion, this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. l II. The District Court Correctly Held That It Lacked Jurisdiction To Review The NRC Licensing Actions At Issue In This Case If this Court determines, contrary to Argument I, supra, that it has jurisdiction over this appeal,.it must then review the lower court's decision that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to review the NRC license amendments complained of here. In section 189 (b) of the Atomic Energy Act, ' Congress directed that "[a]ny final order entered in any proceeding of the kind specified in (section 189 (a)] shall be sub,ect to judicial review in the manner prescribed in the Act of December 29, 1950, as amended (ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1129) , more commonly known as the Hobbs Act. 42 U.S.C. S 2239(b), see 28 U.S.C. SS 2341-51. Under 28 U.S.C. S 2342(4), a " court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of all final orders of the [ Nuclear Regulatory] Commission made reviewable by 28
I section 2239 of Title 42." Vermont Yankee v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (hereaf ter cited as " Vermont Yankee"). Among the final orders contemplated in Section 189(a) are both: (1) orders in a " proceeding (for the]... amending of any license," 42 U.S.C. S 2239 (a) (1); and (2) "a determination by the commission that [an) amendment involves no significant hazards consideration..."42 U.S.C. S 2239 (a) (2). (S.A. 4). By the terms of the statute itsulf, the judicial review directives in section 189(b) apply to all of the different types of section 189(a) proceedings. So long as the actions are final, section 189(b) provides that the courts of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review all-such determinations. On this basis, the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint challenging both the license amendments and the "no significant hazards consid-t eration" determinations. ( Appellants asserted before the District Court, and they assert here, that this Circuit's Lorion decision contro]s this case, and requires the District Court to exercise its jurisdiction. Lorion v. NRC, 712 F.2d 1472 l (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. granted, 104 S. Ct. 1676 (1984) (argued on October 29, 1984, decision pending). Even if its outcome in the Supreme Court is contrary to federal appellees' position, Lorion is not dispositive here. l 29
e._ m,,~_ - . ~ ..m In Lorion, this Court decided that NRC decisions to deny requests to take enforcement action under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 ("2.206") were not final orders entered in " proceedings" of the kind specified in section 189 (a). The Court concluded that such 2.206 decisions were final actions on " requests for proceedings" but were not " proceedings" themselves. Therefore, according to the Lorion Court, subject matter jurisdiction over this sort of 2.206 decision is not governed by the special appellate review format described above, but rather is controlled by the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 5 1331. Even if upheld by the Supreme Court, Lorion is distinguishable from the instant case. The Lorion court was only concerned about whether denial of a 2.206 request for NRC enforcement action was a proceeding under section 18 9 (a) (1). Unlike a 2.206 proceeding, a Commission proceeding to make a "no significant hazards consideration" determination is explicitly specified in Section 189 (a) (2)- and therefore is clearly included in the judicial review provisions of section 189 (b). Under the special review statute, judicial review should proceed in the court of appeals.I San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Hendrie, 502 9That appellants have raised claims under the National [ Footnote Continued] 30
F.Supp. 408, 411-12 (D.D.C. 1980). See City of West Chicago
- v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 542 F.Supp. 13, 15 (N.D.
Ill. 1982), aff'd, 701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983). It is well settled that where Congress has spec-ified.a particular forum for review of agency action, the congressional choice of forum is exclusive. Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans, 379 U.S. 411, 419-20 (1965); Investment Company Institute v. Board of Governors, 551 F.2d 1270, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ; 16 Wright, Miller, Cooper and Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure: Juris-diction, S 3943 (1977). Similarly, although there is a presumption that agency action is subject to judicial review, it is presumptively subject to review in either a district court or a court of appeals, but not both. Investment Company Institute, 551 F.2d at 1279-80; Sun Enterprises v. Train, 532 F.2d 280, 287 (2d Cir. 1975). "[W]here it is unclear whether review jurisdiction is in the [ Footnote Continued] Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. SS 4321-61, does not affect this determination. Where NEPA claims are raised in the context of a challerge to a final NRC licensing action, judicial review lies in a court of appeals. Vermont Yankee, supra, 435 U.S. at 526-27; Susquehanna Valley Alliance v. Three Mile Island Reactor, 619 F.2d 231, 239-42 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1096 (1981). Jurisdiction to review all issues related to thesc actions should proceed only in a court of appeals. See City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 31
m _m_.-
- m. ~.m m district court or the court of appeals the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the latter..."
Denberg v. U.S.R.R. Retirement Bd., 696 F.2d 1193, 1197 (7th Cir. 1983), citing Rockford League of Women Voters v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1982). Placing review of final NRC actions on license amendments and associated findings exclusively in a court of appeals gives appellants all necessary legal remedies, while avoiding the inefficiency of bifurcated review. The courts of appeals have the authority to determine the adequacy of 1 the environmental and safety record in support of the amendments, the propriety of the "no significant hazards consideration" findings, and the adequacy of NRC's actions on appellants' comments.10 l. ) 10The NRC has already' examined all technical issues l raised in appellants' comments to the agency, even though I appellants did not file a timely request for hearing on the ) first set of amendments. Further, an NRC Licensing Board is currently reviewing appellants' claims on the merits of the second set of amendments. Thus, that hearing process holds out the prospect of at least partial relief on the entire case. In addition, if appellants have other concerns beyond those so far addressed to this Court, the District Court, or to the NRC (such as, for example, the general concerns about PTS which fill their brief but are irrelevant to this case), the 2.206 process is also available to assure that the agency develops a full factual record for judicial review, avoiding the prospect that the resources of this or some other court would be prematurely expended. Appellants should exhaust NRC remedies before seeking judicial review. McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 (1969); Simmons [ Footnote Continued] 32
Accordingly, the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. r III. Appellants Cannot Complain To This Ccurt That the District Court Refused To Transfer This Action Under 28 U.S.C. S 1631 Appellants argue, for the first time in this action, that the District Court erred in failing to transfer - j l this case to the Court of Appeals. They interpret 28 U.S.C. S 1631 as mandating a sua sponte transfer whenever a court determines, as here, that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter. They cite no support for this proposition, and we are aware of none. Before the District Court, appellants did not move for transfer. Thus they presented no argument to the District Court that the " interest of justice," or any other interest, warranted transfer of this case. This Court's reviewing role is limited to determining whether the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to ~ transfer this case under 28 U.S.C. S 1631. See Billops v. [ Footnote Continued]
- v. Arkansas Power and Light Co.,
655 F.2d 131 (Sth Cir. 1981); Honicker v. Hendrie, 465 F.Supp. 414 (M.D. Tenn.), aff'd, 605 F.2d 556 (Table) (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1072 (1980). 33
Department of the Air Force, 725,F.2d 1160, 1164 (8th Cir. 1984). T.he District Court was under no obligation to exercisEitsdiscretiontotransferthecaseintheabsence of argument on this issue. Nor can it be said to have abused itsidiscretion when it failed to guess the relief l appellants would have preferred but never sought. Appellants cannot be permitted.to reshape their case and arguments as the spirit moves them at succeeding stages of the proceedings. They cannot challenge the District Court's decision based on arguments not even raised below, particularly when this Court's standard of review is limited to determining whether the District Court abuse'd its discretion. This Circuit has repeatedly and consistently rej'ected attempts to raise on appeal contentions, including legal arguments, not sufficiently raised in district court in the first instance. E.q, United States v. Pickney, 543 F.2d 908, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Miller v. Avirom, 384 F.2d 319, 321-23 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Johnston v. Reily, 160 F.2d '249, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1947) (the rule is one "of substance in the administration of the courts" and, while it "may work hardship in individual cases, it is necessary that its integrity be preserved"). Under these uniform authorities, appellants are precluded from arguina in this Court that transfer is in the interest of justice, because that contention was not even 34 u--
presented to the District Court.11 In the present circumstances, however, it requires no citation to case authority to conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying transfer when that request was not even presented to the District Court. It was appellants' burden to establish that transfer was in the interest of justice. Cf. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 461 F. Supp 384, 393 (D. Del. 1978) (party seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. S 1406(a) has burden to show that such transfer is "in the interest of justice"). By failing to raise the issue in any of their papers filed with the District Court, they also failed to carry that burden. Certainly, the District Court cannot be faulted for failing to find l 11 In Miller v. Avirom, supra, now-Chief Judge Robinson explained the rationale behind this well-established rule: l In our jurisprudential system, trial and appellate l processes are synchronized in contemplation that review will normally be confined te matters appropriately submitted for determination in the court of first resort. Questions not properly raised and preserved during the proceedings under examination, and points not asserted with sufficient precision to indicate distinctly the party's thesis, will normally be spurned on appeal._ Canons of this tenor reflect, not obeisance to ritual, but " considerations of fairness to the court and the parties and of the public interest in bringing litigation to an end after fair opportunity has been afforded to present all issues of law and fact." 384 F.2d at 321-22, quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 159 (1936). 35
transfer in the interest of justice when that remedy was never pursued by appellants in the District Court although fully known and available to them at the time. IV. The NRC Staff Correctly Found That The Amendments To The Turkey Point Operating License Involved No Significant Hazards Considerations. If, contrary to Argument I, supra, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this appeal and if it decides, contrary to Argument II, supra, that the District Court has jurisdiction over the challenge to NRC action raised by the appellants, this case must be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.12 On the other hand, if this Court assumes jurisdiction over this appeal, affirms the District Court's finding that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, but then determines that the lower court erred in failing to transfer the case to this Court (contrary to Argument III, supra) then, and only then, may it be necessary for the Court to reach the merits of the 12 ~ Contrary to appellants' assertions, such review would be subject to the well-established APA principle that an informal agency decision (such as the NRC "no significant hazards consideration" decision) must be upheld unless it was " arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. S 706 (2) (A).
- See, e.g., Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 549.
36
.................-m.......... a substantive issues in this case.13 There is only one substantive issue that is a final agency action properly reviewable at this time: the NRC staff's finding that the second set of amendments at issue involves no significant hazards consideration.14 13The appellants argue that even if this Court affirms Judge Penn's jurisdictional analysis and concludes that the Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review the NRC orders at issue, the Court must then rransfer the case back to the district court "for a determination of the disputed. facts." Argument I. E. of Appellants Brief. To d support this argument they rely on language in 28 U.S.C. S 2347(b) (3) of the Hobbs Act-to the effect that a case must be transferred to a district court when "a genuine issue of material' fact is presented." However, no such transfer is required here. The issue before this Court on reviewing the merits of the commission's no significant hazards consideration determination would be whether the administrative record supports the decision. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). There is no factual issue with regard to what constitutes the record. Thus there is no need for the district court's t evidentiary capabilities. "[T]he focal point for judicial review should be the record already in existence, not some r new record made initially in the reviewing court." Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). Thus the transfer that appellants contemplate is not only unnecessary, it is also flatly precluded. If the Court finds the agency record - inadequate to support the decision, a remand to the !!RC rather than discovery in the district court is the ~ appropriate remedy. Deukmejian v. NRC, 751 F.2d 128.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 14The no significant hazards consideration finding on the first set of amendments is not before the Court because appellants did not file comments within 30 days on the proposed finding for those amendments, 10 C.F.R. S 50.91 (a) (2). Thus appellants did not properly exhaust their administrative remedies with regard to the first set of-amendments. Even absent this fatal flaw, appellants' [ Footnote Continued] 37
Appellants have given the Court absolutely no reason why the NRC's no significant hazards consideration finding should not be affirmed. Indeed, rather than address the only substantive question before the Court, i.e., whether the Commission abused its discretion in finding that the change in reactor core configuration at Turkey Point involves no significant hazards consideration, appellants expand at length on their view that reactor pressure vessel embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock are " serious safety issues." Appellants' Brief, Argument IIA. The Commission has never claimed otherwise. All that the Commission has determined is that the license amendments challenged by the appellants involve no significant hazards consideration. 5 [ Footnote Continued] arguments on both sets of amendments are defective for the reasons discussed herein. 15Appellants are free to argue in a 10 C.F.R. S 2.206 petition to the NRC that more should be done to address the PTS issue as it affects Turkey Point, but that is a question which goes well beyond whether the particular amendment at issue here has been properly issued prior to an agency hearing. It is only with regard to the latter question that the Commission has reached a reviewable decision. 38
~ ? + For the reasons given below, that determination was fully in accordance with the facts and NRC regulations. It should be affirmed.16 In this case the staff performed an evaluation of 1 the amendments, and reached its no significant hazards consideration findings (J.A. 108-112) by using both the section 50.92(c) criteria and the examples in the preamble to the rule. See 48 Fed. Reg. at 14870 (S.A. 12). In their effort to turn this case into a review of-PTS, appellants ignore the narrow question before the Court: the substance of the amendment at issue, the staff's SER on which the determination is based, the section 50.92(c) standards and examples which have been applied, and the NRC's attempts to faithfully carry out congressional intent to "devel-op... standards that to the maximum extent practicable, draw a clear distinction between amendments that involve a significant hazards consideration and those [that do not]." S. Rep. No. 113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. at 15, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3592, 3607. These 16 The appellants may attempt to challenge the substance of the amendments themselves in a hearing before the NRC -- indeed, they are doing so right now -- but in accordance with Section 189(a) and the regulatory scheme based on it, those amendments may go into effect while the hearing.is pending. This effectiveness in entirely rcascnable for a license amendment that involves no significant hazaras consideration. It is precisely what Congress intended. 39
standards, as applied to the Turkey Point amendments, establish that the changes to the reactor core present no significant hazards consideration.17 That finding should be affirmed. It is in this kind of highly technical area involving assessments by the agency of probabilities of accidents, margins of safety, and accident sequences, that the Court's deference to the NRC should reach its zenith. See Carstens v. NRC, 742 F.2d 1546, 1557 (D.C. Cir. 1984), quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v.. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983). "'Particularly when we consider a purely factual question within the area of competence of an administrative agency created by Congress, and when resolution of that question depends on " engineering and scientific" considerations, we recognize the relevant agency's technical expertise and 17The safety and environmental merits of the amendments -- as opposed to whether they involve no significant hazards considerations -- are not before the Court at this time. They are being reviewed in an ongoing Licensing Board proceeding on the second set of amendments. Appellants have presented no arguments on the merits of the amendments, and, in any case, the exhaustion doctrine should preclude judicial consideration of the merits of those amendments at this time. These ongoing hearings will give appellants the opportunity to attempt to show that the amendments raise important safety'or environmental issues which have not been adequately resolved by the NRC staff. If this showing can be made then the NRC Licensing Board is authorized to order revocation of the amendments. 40
- y.
_._7___.,._,,s,m_~~ experience, and defer to.its analysis unless it is without substantial basis in fact.'" Id., 742 F.2d at 1557, note 17,; quoting Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power & Light company, 404 U.S. 453, 463~(1972) . (emphasis added). There is a " substantial basis in fact" for the NRC's no significant hazards consideration decisions on the Turkey Point amendments, as discussed in the SERs (J.A. 92, 125). The amendments do not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated; they do not create the possibility of a type of accident different from those already evaluated; and they do not significantly decrease any margin of safety. Appellants do not address, much less attack, the bases for these findings. Thus this Court should uphold those decisions. 18The Appellants' NEPA argument (Appellants' Brief, Argument III), founders on the same misconception that vitiates their Atomic Energy Act claims. The staff found that the amendments had no significant environmental impacts because t hey increased neither effluents nor reactor power output, and thus that no SEIS was necessary. SER of December 9, 1983 at 21-22; SER of December 23, 1983 at 13-14 (J.A.112-113; 137-138). This accorded with 10 C.F.R. S 51.5 (b) (2). The NRC has met all NEPA requirements with respect to the Turkey Point amendments, and that is all that could properly be at issue here. If the appellants see the PTS problem as a circumstance requiring additional environmental analysis at Turkey Point, they may petition the NRC for such action. 10 C.F.R. S 2.206. 41
It is apparent that what appellants really seek is to litigate whether, in view of PTS, the Turkey Point reactors should be operating at all. Thus, they ignore the operative staff documents on the amendments. But it was never the intention of Congress to allow the use of hearing rights on amendments to reopen hearings on the original operating licenses.19 Appellants' approach would mean that every license amendment proposed, no matter how innocuous itself, would open up relitigation of every conceivable safety issue to which the amendment might be related. This Court rejected a similar reading of the Atomic Energy Act in Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1983). For the foregoing reasons, if the Court reaches the underlying substantive 1ssue in this case, the Court should find that the NRC's no significant hazards consideration finding was entirely proper. l 19The intent was to require prior hearings only on amendments which, in and of themselves, raised significant, new and unreviewed safety issues. What appellants actually seek in this case is review of a pre-existing problem, regardless of the inherent implications of the amendments i themselves. l i 42 e
_.mm - - -m.cmm--ymu-,m... mm x... . m.1. u. :.m.<w CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, appellants' appeal j against federal appellees should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, 'A h HERZEE H. E. P'.INE F. HENRY HABICHT II General Counsel Assistant Attorney General I f / WILLIAM H. BPyI , J P/. EDWARD J. SHAWAKER Solicitor Attorney ^,j b wyb E. LEO SLAGGIE e DIRK D. SNEL Deputy SolicitoN U Attorney Land & Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530 h (202) 633-3522 MICHAEL B. BLUME Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (202) 634-1493 Dated: April 5, 1985 43
.pg, w .e3~. ..<7...,w.r,,,y......my,.ng .,, ~..,. -,.... .,, - -.., - ~ m + Af 5 4-v' '.- 3, -,. e., s' h (. l'V ^ I, 9 4 S f s pd.a._ y 9 9 L i .f*t., : - s se.5 ?. i s s x s 4
- 4.,+'Y. h
= &,4% 16 4 .s i v, e' -y
- -.g -
..) .re p'S. .L, '4 - 'd' 'I ) l f^ ,,, ' o N ' .' S. l y '} .; y R f, !. 'l. l i'+ l l.' ,}s ,%rA-1 e s s g,
- k, I
~ ,c* T. *g,' d > b I h". '(.y j g ,((* J t t r,- A }., 4 g .4. .o -g 4 9 4 4 0: s I e ,p ? -$y-8 ,sy, ,w, hp kh .NN. b.. * ***{Yt ,IL'4 .(. *Iq ;[- r } U
- g#
18'
- trh.
- h' b M h',
\\ Q.}; ). +a ? y ~ g .- w- , 7t ,S:Ye Y.
- t f -
",*V 0, i ,,,O -p -f- .,.L,'.. 4. $[ '.' n.
- i,-,
7 l ) 6' . 2 i s .o - [ W.$) 1,. g 'r' a '. ',' 1 ' .g (p g '*f ...m z, .g 5 .,. w .e ~s
- , '7".",.
g g M'w*S,,- cg .i. e..., p
- t, ',
4 x t-r ,.g,[ M, %{ '{ ' j" el , p.
- e. ' t*,4 f . * * [ [
- (.p '*& tiR k
in ' ", c p&r%,Y O, + i 4 f sl is D.( R,t np &k,, r $,'. ~.bd < i; ^:> L? C [ t f _L. l s ,s r m, y.: e.y' k , $ &Q,'yGJ/fl G.\\*, W C: t 6;:. ~ 1,n 3l' - - i' a, ,2v &q Joh Y, s y,: lQ. s' % ^ fj j .ts ' [ W. ' i, _,., s.
- lf.4f'2&Qdf^[)J' QY
- @ ; d '
m
- m....,#, [a^ mp. m nww ~, _., w.s, m
- ye n m.w w. , u. m.s n M... y. mm. m a g :, s.pe, r g 7C [# ~,. ',.. g:. ,u v.. s y o. ~., N.g ',,.'y ".' .a ~ 3 ~.
- ,, ;LQ #., c. %a. ~ a.'.N, m%m' * - --~.. *, t
- A', Q,lm.m' ' N.i..--
- 6 y
o e,U. *" e ..mT $.: e. . f.i ' g ( ';e*8 .4 e .- '<,4
- '" l.
w',l a * - 4.f.r = t 4 i s 4. b / );y... ..4,'.#,' a ,, /.,,,... .p.,. f s $',$h(!h-c [' v.,1' %.y N!%p r+. W,N[13%'sM4 k,i,%, M,.h [, 9! 8 1,... f $C e 4 $/ s j j. k'.#, T.1 g si,s w m,1 %W[mk.b@h h"[. j, 5d h, / -f-i dNl' Mh('/# u: M W :n a2.w w.w w >v-7 n-;& Y W 'o' ump 2 >.N.i,< : H. : &. 3, \\.dl,~.Y&:)StF i> ? f-$% L X Wy f.%Mkn: W ?,f _. l 6, '../ -2[ s q;n W 1 % %g & Q % Q}A % Q : @& @& g. W : & % @ & Q W Q Q W :k % li WWM.ym n,;WsmMW n Ma:&%@MM f % *$ W.Mi. %Wg @Qh%m'4,WsWW@& g&WQ r,iM W & nq aS gn.,.~. M e 99 6 WS.J HHe.u,%q,.;$p4,m. 6. a;v:;m 9 MV G.WQMy n M y. p. y'4,w a h.,.n...y% w.-_4M.w w,..., w [.
- a.. p..w a.
,,, w. p,. 74 c. [N O'" - ^< 4 't I (.' N Ui.!' .s O' .b u . 4
- 9*
),'. % } 1QY (' hh.K'sk r, I*[ d 5 -#g /l, >-[- d*3 =g &,,Y"*"}f'.*luL^)A*, Y .'u.~g g, 6 fh!! yjN "S'#t .f. 'ff& k g.h$.j b li' . 6 a WMp;.,e,g.@dWM*;44,.;>+:M W 2.un4 @l6 h'.'( ' F 4 e Y , "4 9:f f? h : %e W.5, c &W. J l-ld a k/Q/; h,Y. - 'C 9 &f.. J ' k.. ' g %, =s , f. ; ' % Q@,.%o ( .,+ $;f D ',%j h %.%'. m.
- n, '
- sa -
n, s.'.<* &,
- L M..
~L r ,~ - p';W b r A,, u, Ml a' M. g. m G. e.s. xG s t y.. o .) 'o'3 * ,1 ~ . -j ~. ; k A ' * '@ f).i . ' < %.R 3 ~ %, m@.a.., W p,G4 M m ' h @W %g W W Sm w w. ~, d. w' w %.n P P E,. o r',. mcg.N M b'. WN s. s m. m.VsmW yJ'A.%: ,4M~f a a
- f. s y
Lg sw y. x c: Mo ~.w.x - wn e .m. - r a w.
- ?
s.. r - ,ynaf
- AA,7 %y u y;:j' Q Q y37,y.:: n'n.[I[?'t &.ghic{f R,
' k :. . ~. '. :'; '.be{u. ;. q l l %p.,J ,,,.jy,,* b ;,N :Q.).x, e- - ;4 p 2 r.i; %. w p e',% pm,x,1 -r j4 v qr.< %4 f
- 3
,.7 ,p .s* r,e*. st ? pd 4 [ k [ r[ } ;, * ^*/ _ ',. L _ 4 [,N, 4 4 g +3 . ' y,,g, w,., t s, ,4 - ~ ,. s.mh.c m, e<.,.,,. s.. 3..w ~. .vc a s .c s r,.p r s.. t <gi .e- < Ih[ b,( fi. .~.vgg M,T ,,,Jg e
- v e +
[ =b' ar / {#.4, ,4 e ~ +1 h. ') 3, j p 4 }., 1 y L s ?, ' /, : -.*f 6 '(
- k#
1h ( ,[ ,S' ,4 , {t 1
- j. ~ 1 r a
w 9 h ' sh .g i ., No.e.. b i N f.' y', s y s
- ' /
,I. . } '1 j d- b x y 4 ?.', m .,4 g f P i 8 e S'. g( "s_b S a. s4 Q c. * ..bc 1 f-
- p 4 a8 E
O g
- ..'#.) 3.i~~C*
. ek sf .,,l "h.4'q T .g h f .g,, s e ll f 'e' @ o s y 'y, i _ =, * ' **s , $ p'fs, 's y
- ' \\
in,. !! f (*'..r~ f, J, a,
- 4 s 's-^;
e
- ;t s
- 4. f L; M. M*,N f,h ',
Y ? 5# a a, l "p p y 4 g ,3 l
- y
,. 7,a ,1 g,,.
- a s.
s. c., sb b ?. '.a. v b t, W, % 3 , p, '.,, /* k., n ( 's 5 '. 'y,. I / e f ,, Q ,:f~.} Yk 'I>. t m.. .. g,_1,* , g t,,s.p t v, v ( f y' e f.6 '.. <4e d .sf p< ; W e.. x, ~n 4 ,e,r. n s p, n..y..ri. .L,. t' .s 1., c., .gs s.. / n.x r s e' tfy,i.' a ,,._3 i, 4 I g9. h O
- o.
,s. e f 3 7 a
..,______-___,7______ .:= Table of Contents Page A. Statutes 1 42 U.S.C. 5 2239 (1982) 1 28 U.S.C. 5 2342 (1982) 2 28 U.S.C. S 1631 (1982) 3 28 U.S.C. 5 2347 (1982) 4 B. Miscellaneous Documents 5 48 Fed. Reg. 33,076, 33,080 (1983) 5 48 Fed. Reg. 45,862 (1983) 8 Letter, Sept. 21, 1983, Levi"to Hodder, attaching Feb. 1, 1983 letter Varga to Uhrig 10 l l I e e e 4 9 e I
.. _ ~, r. A. Statutes 42 U.S.C. S 2239 (1982) 4 Stat. Hearings sad jed6cial reele= amendment to an operating license invohes no significant hazards consideration: (til criteris (aX1) In any proceeding under this chapter, for providing or. In emergency situations dis. for the granting, suspending, revoking, or pensing with prior notice and reasonable oppor. amending of any license or construction permit, tunity for public comment on any such deter-or appucadon to transfer caucl. and in any mination, which criteria shall take into account proceeding for the issuance or modification of the exigency of the need for the amendment in. rules and rvegulations dealing with the activities vo and (W pmceduns for consuhauon on of Iloensees, and in any proceeding for the pay-ment of compensation, an award or royalties [h ch t e fact t in olv ii d-under secuons 2183. 2187. 2236(c) or 2238 of (b) Any final order entered in any proceeding this UUe the Commission shall grant a hearing of the kind specified in subsection (a) of this upon the request of any person whose interest section shall be subject to judicial review in the may be affected by the proceeding and shall manner pmsc in dapter 158 of Ude 28. admit any such person as a party to such pro-and to the pmvisions of chapter 7 of Ude 5. ceeding. The Commission shall hold a hearing after thirty days' nouce and publication once in the Federal Register on each application under section 2133 or 2134(b) of this title for a con-struction permit for a facility, and on any appll-cation under section 2134(c) of this title for a construction permit for a testing facility. In esses where such a construction permit has been lasued following the holding of such a hearing, the Commisalon may. in the absence of a a request therefor by any person whose interest may be affected, lasue an operating license or an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating Ilcense without a hearing, but upon thirty days' notice and publi-cation once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so. The Ccmmission may dispense with such thirty days' notice and publication with respect to any application for an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license upon a determinsuon by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. (2X A) The Commtuicn may issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an op-ersting license, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwith-standing the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. Such amendment may be issued and made im-mediately effective in advance of thq holding + and completion of any required hearing. In de-termining under this section *whether such amendment involves no significant hasards con-sideration the Commission shall consult with the State in which the f acility involved is locat. ed. In all other respects such amendment shall meet the requirements of this chapter. (B) The Commission shall periodically (but not less frequently than once every thirty days) publish nouw of any amendments issued, or 1 proposed to be issued, as provided in subpara-graph (A). Each a ch nouce shall include all amendments issueo. or proposed to be issued. since the date of Isublication of the last such periodic notice. Su h notice sha!!. with respect to each amendment or proposed amendment (1) identify the facility Livolved; and (11) provide a brief description of such amendment. Nothing in this subsecuon shall be construed to delay the effective date of any amendment. (C) The Commission shall. during the ninety. day period following the effective date of this _ earmaraph. cromuleats reeulations establishing
r + 28 U.S.C. S 2342 (1982) I2843.Jurtsection of court of appeale The court of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir. cult) has esclusive jurisdiction to enjoin set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to deter. mine the validity of-1 (1) all final orders of the Federal Communt-osuon Pa==taaion made reviewable by sec. tion 402(a) of due 47; (2) all final orders of the Secretary of Asrl. culture made under chapters 9 and 20A of Ude 7, eacept orders lasued under sections 210(e),217a. and 499s(a) of Ude 7; (3) such final orders of the Federal Mart. time Comunission or the Mariume Adminis tration entered under chapters 23 and 23A of Ude 44 as are subject to judicial review under secdon 830 of Utle 44; (4) all final orders of the Atomic hersy Commtmaton made reviewable by section 2239 of title 42; and (5) all rules, regulations, or final orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission made reviewable by section 2321 of this title and all j final orders of such Commission made re-viewable under section 11901(IM2) of title 49, l United States Code. l Jurisdiction is invoked by filing e. petition as provided by section 2344 of this utie. l 6 2
f .ym.y .,~m.:.,, .~ i = l f l I l 28 U.S.C. S 1631 (1982) l Sec. 1881. Trennfer to sure want of Jurtmecuen. 81481. Trameter to eure went of jurledicGon .Whengrer a civil action is filed in a court as defined in secuen 810 of this utte or an appeal, including a petiden for review of administrative action, is nouced for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of Ju. Fladiction, the court shall. if it is in the laterest I of jusuce transfer such action or appeal to any I other such court in which the action or appea! could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall pro-coed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually fued in or nouced for the court froen which it is transferred. l l e 3
mwwmemmmumw-w-,wo mus,umwws.ss,qm+ msg.mwes 28 U.S.c. S 2347 (1982) la governed by the Federal Rules of Civu Pro. O 3847. Feeldeas to redew; g eedure. (a) Unless determined on a anodon to dismiss (c)If a pany to a procuding to review appk peddons to review orders reviewable under this' to W court of appeala in which me pr% chapter are heard in h court of appeals on la pending for leave to adduce additional evt. the record of the pleadings, evidence adduced dence and shows to W sausfaction of the coun and proceedings before h agency. when the that-- agency has held a hearing whether or not re-(1) the additional evidence is material; and guired to do ao by law. (3) Wre were reasonable grounds for fall. (b) When the agency has not held a hearing ure to adduce h evidence before the agency; before taking the action of which review is sought by the petition, the court of appeals the court may order the add!Llonal evidence shall determine whether a hearing is required and any counterevidence the opposite party de. by law. After that determhetan the court stres to offer to be taken by the agency. The agency may modify its findings of fact, or make shau-(1) remand the proceedings to the agency to new findings, by reason of the additional ett. hold a hearing, when a hearing la required by dence so taken. and may modify or set aalde its order, and shall fue in the court the additional law; (2) pass on the issues presented, when a evidence, the modified findings or new findings, and the modified order or the order setting hearing is not required by law and it appears from the pleadings and affidavits fUed by the aside the ortsinal order. parties that no genuine issue of material fact is presented; or (3) transfer the proceedings to a district court for the district in which the petidoner resides or has its principal office for a hearing and determination as if the proceedings were originally inittsted in the district court, when a hearing la not required by law and a genu. tne issue of material fact is presented. The procedure in these cases in the district court + t 4
. n -= _ _ - - = n. -_ _ _ ~.. ~. n_ac 33sP4 Federal Regleter / Vol. n No.140 / Wedneedey Jaly ah tems / he B. Miscellaneous Documents Notice of Request for First License Amendment %e Comadeolon hoe made e proposed deterseinence that the following IIUCLEAlt ftEGULATCHy amendment requeets lavolve no signancaat hasarde considerelion. Under eneesenemanas the Cosemiseice's regulatione la 10 CFR AppSections and Amendmente to adLat.this oneene that operation of the Operaung Llooneesinvetving ne facility is accordance with the.J : :d r SignNicant Henardo Considerationes anwadsments would not (1) involve a teonthh Nottee significant lacrease la the probability or consequences of as accident Previenely L evolueted; er (2) create the powibility of Purement to Public Lew (Pob.L)er-a new or different kind of accident from ~ eaa.the Nuclees Reginaterp' ;its any accident previously evaluated; or (3) =l='aa (the Coeumission)is 7"b.1.E7-415 involve a ' '94 reduction in a regular monthly notice.Pu enargin of eefety.De beene for this revised secdoelas of the Atomac Isergy =-- -I determination for each Act of1964. se J (the Ar.11.to [,Jadnest request le shown below. require the th=8-ion to publish . %e h-I=&a= le seeking public r modos of any====nt=mateimmed.ee comments on thle peoposed proposed to be leased, under a new determinetion. Any commente received r...i_ of esc 6on las of the Act Die within 30 doye after the date of provision grante the Commission the Publication of thle nodce will be autority to tuus and make immediately considered la making any final effective any amendment to en determination.De Commission will not operating license upon a deterraination Wormally make e Anal determinetion by the Commiselon that such unless it receives a request for e
- bearing, amendment involves no significant hazarde consideration. notwithstandint Comnwate
...ad be addressed to the the pendency before the Cosimiselon of s, ..y et the Commission. U.S. a request for a hearing from any pereoft leuclear Regulatory Commiselon. %Is snonthly notice im'udes all Weehington D.C.20555. Attn: Docketing emendment inued. or proposed to be and Service Branch. By Augeot 22.1983, the licensee may Issued eince the dete of pub!!cetion of - file's request for a hearing with respect the last snoothly notice which wee published on jene 22.1983 (48 FR 28578-to leeumece of the amendment to the 2sse3) through July 12.1983. subject facsit? *Pereting license and any person waoes interont may be
- Nedee of Considerstlea of lemmence of affected by tMe proceeding and who Amendenset to Facility Opereting wishes to pet., siete as a party la the 13cumes and 7.,
- Ne Sienincent proceedans mm.: rde a written petitlan Heurde Ceesideration Determination for leave to intervene. Requeet for a and Opportonity for Meering hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance e
5
-.-.-.m Federal Regletor / Val. 4s. N5140 / W dnzeday. July 30,1ess / N: tic e i with the Commleolon's " Rules of If a hearing is requested, the D.C. sessa, and to the attorney for the practice for Domestic Ucensing fWa=I=lan will make e Anal heensee proceedings"in 10 CFR part 2.lf a determination en the leave of no Nontimely Blings of petitions for leave request for a hearing or petition for signlAcant hasards consideration.no to intervene amended petitions, leav3 tointervene is Bled by the abow Rnaldetwednation will own to decide su leewatal petitions and/or requeste det:.the '--laalon or an Atoodc when the hearing le held. for will not be entertained r Saf;ty and Licensing Board, designated If The Saaldeterudnationis that b absent a termination by b by the P==laalaa or by the Chairman amendment requestinvolves no t'a==i=8on.1be presiding omcw or b es the Atonde Safety and ucensing signiScent hasards consideration, the Atoadc Safety and ucensing Board Board panel,will rule on h request rwami-laa may team the amendment designated to rule on the petition and/or tsad/or petition and se Sacretary or the and make it lausediately eNective, request. eat the petitioner has made a deelpated ' Atomic Safety and Licensing notwitbetanding the request for a substantial showing of good cause for Board willleeue a notice of hearing or hearing. Any hearing held would take ' the granting of a late petition andfor .an appropriate ordw. place aftw issuance of the asundment' request. net determination will be As required by to CFR S 3.714 a N the Analdeterminationis that the band upon a Waae% of k factors tion forleave to latervene shall set ,1===* Invdves a signtAcant
- epecified in to CFR 1714(a)(1)(IHv) with particularity thelaterset of hasards considweden,any hewing bdd and 2.714(d) the petitioner in the proceeding. and would tain place before esleemanos g por fortbar details witb~ respect to thle action, ese the application for how that laterest may be, asected by the
,,y ,t amendment which is available for public seenits of the proceeding.ne petition hopection at the Comadesion's public abould :;d"~Ily explain the reasons t udlb ewe Room.1n7 H Street NW., wh(interwation abould be punitted
- piredon d es abday nodce pwlod.
Waeldagton.D.C., and af thw local wit particular reference to the Howew, abould circuantances change 'public docummet room for the particular fouowing factors:(1)ne nature of the during ee nedce pwled such est fauum secihty levolved. petitioner's right under the Act to be Jo act in a duly my would result, for made a party to the roceeding:(2) the example.in dwedag or ebutdown of es nature and entent o the petitioner's faculty ee t'a==i==3a= my issue es property. Ansariat orotherinterestin licana asundmet befom tlw the proceeding:and(3) the possible
- pireden d ee SSday nodos pwlod.
order which may be efect of anhe proceeding on h provided that its Anal deterudnation le plodde power and Usht Company, entered in t that the===aal= ant involves no Decket Nos. SM80 and SMst. Turkey peddoner's interest. De petition should deo imlendfy du specinc aspect (s) g signine==t besards ceneideration.De peint plant. Unit Nos.3 and 4. Dede Snaldeterminaden wGlconsider all Comary. Florida. the subiect matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. gblic and State commnts moeind Dese af amendment roguese June 3. om sedanis taken.Should the. sees. Any person who has Bled a petition for """alaalaa take this action. it wul Ducdpdendam h-t reque le:ve to intervene or who bas been cdmitted as a party may amend the Publish a notice of teenance and pmvide This amendment involves Technical - petition without requestingleave of the vor opportunity for a bearing after Speci8 canon chanen to support Board up to fifteen (15) days pdor to the. l'avance.De Comunfeelon expects that planned fuel design modincation during Aret prehearing conference scheduled in the need to take this action will occur Cycle 9 refueling for Unit 3. Cycle to the proceeding, but auch an amended wry infrequently. mfueling for Unit 4 and subsequent petition must satisfy the specificity A request for a bee' ring or a pe6 tion cycles.it is planned to replace the for leave to intervene must be Bled with Westingbouse is x 15 low. parasitic requiremente ducribed above. t Not later than Siteen (15) days prior to the Secretary of the t'a-laalaa U.S. (14pR) fueled cores with Westingbouse the Bret prehearing conference Nuclear Regulatory Consdesion. la xis optindsed fuel sewably (OFA) och:du!ed in the proceedmg. e petitioner Washington D.C.30S&5 Attention: core with Wet Annular Burnable shall Ele a supplement to the petition to Docketing and Service Branch, or may Absorber (WABA) Rode. Changes are i / intervene which must include a tiet of be delivered to the t'a==leolon's public requated to:(1) pundt lacreases in the contentions which are sought to be Docenent Room.1717 H Street. NW., shutdown and control rod drop time htigated in the matter, and the bases for Washington D.C.,by the above date. which wul be bened on safety analysis I each contention set forth with Where petitione are Aled during the last for the transition cores:(2) use of ' reasonable specincity.Contentione shall ten (to) days of the notice period. it is burnable poleon rode of an approved l be lindted to mettere within the scope of requested that the petitioner promptly so design for rescovity and/or power inform the h=8=laa by a tell. free distribution factors; and (3) changes in r l the amendment under consideration. A ' petitioner who faSe to fue such a telephone call to Western Union at (eco) bot channel factors and other power supplement which setienee these asMooo(in h6esourt (soo) 34M7ao). distribution factors affecting departure sequimments with respect to at least one ' ne Western Union operator abould be frees nucleate boiling (DNB). De change } cont:ntion will not be permitted to given Detagram Identification Number in core physics parametere and thwmal l participate as a party. 3737 and the fouewing mweege abaractonetics are require' du to the d nose permitted to latervene become addressed to (Branch CMef): petitioner's improved neutronic characteristics of o S-; subject to any name and teleybone number;date parties to the m i lindtctions in the order granting leave to petition was meded; plant name;and I let;nene, and beve the opportunity to. publication date and page number of i pete fullyin the conduct of sne tids Federal Regleter nonce. A copy of including the p dty to es petition abould also be sent to the l present evidence and crose-==laa Executive tagal Director. U.S. Nuclear i eritnessee Regulatory,-i-lan Weeldeston. 6
_m . 2._ m - - w a m e m, -m m ..r-33000 Fedoest Resistee / Vel. 4a. No.140 / Wednesday, July 20. toss / Notices heelassemblise and fuelmanagement manalAaptions. ' Basicforproposednosignificant has consideration determinotion: The luion has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether license amendments lavolve no i signincent hasards conalderations by viding certain example (48 FR 14470). e(ill)of amendmentsnotlikely to involve significant hasards considerations is a change resulting from nuclear reactor reload.'ng involving no fuel assemblies significanuy different from those previously found acceptable at the facility in question, where no signincant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the Technical Specifications the analyticalmethods need are not signincantly changed and the NRC has previously found the methods acceptable.The instant amendments are similar to the example la that the new fuelis exactly like' previous Westinghouse 15 x 15 fuel assemblies except with grid spaces made with different material and improved neutronic characteristics. 'the core safety limits and associated setpoints in the current Technical Specifications are applicable.The effects of increased rod drop time are within all the safety limits and c;riteria analysed in the FSAR and the plant will be operated within the previously approved margins and limits. Each reload core design will be evaluated to assure that design and safety limits are eationed according to NRC approved
- methodology and analysis.On this basis, the staff proposu to determine that the amendments involve no signiBeant hasards consideration.
LocalPubile Document Room location:Environmentoland Urban Affairs Library Florida laternational University. Miami. Florida 33190. A ttorney for licensee: Harold V. Reis. Esquire.Lowenstein. Newman. Reis and Axstrad.1025 Connecticut Avenue. N.W., Sulta 1214.Washirg,on D.C. 20038. NRCBranch Chief: Steven A.Vatga. 7
h ss w r e ss - - ss:sassssssssssssssssss m sss e f "w< wu.%99mur;=mmmge,wr-- "ordSI Fedeem! Wesletar / Wel aa, tie. ses / Fdday. Ocheber F.1ggs / 45stees tem im ers.= m inmeme em tonal ' .metiSed heo,=mapir and we or penhhg Secter Fe hadt heat se to 3.13;. Sow esedloons to escomunodate the (3) ebange the everpower eT setpoints reducsonla margin reemiting bom and thermal-hydraulic limM serves;nad lacreaslag the Fae less af hanit and de (4) dense seeertesoas and ihmies pleesd within the Final Salogy Analyeis Aqpert se the old steam toes to eBew for (F5AR) deelga heels (3) for hosehe up to operstlos web plugged ta vuesse andincluding the i - : -- i ! l Notice of Request for d Sve (s) percentla meandemos we sevrance of a reactor emolantpipe the Sncond License telleenseers appScasonfor 3CCS wulmeet h eme srttede
- eseadmeute dated August 18.1888 **
etto CFR 80.40: and (4) eeerpower j totundment supplemented September e.19eg-
- T wiu be mass restrictin to Defoseleemanas of the ry' pro protocoon ning the lleense aseendenste, the -61a9 mealculated core hatte and error e
will han enade Radings required hy the anowances proved inshe safety Atomic Act of assa,as amaded enfation whichmdicate the niety the ""'"** energia le withia ne acceptance ertwria %(theAct) r l Moss. of the Standard Review Plan. i Camminism hee made aymposed 1he change la the Overpower AT denru h eve. ast se -. a - m_m ,,,,g,,g,,, g "*g,, curves are similarE 11 --- : not hkely to levolve signiAcant uguladene in soCM som.&&s meam hasards camelderations: A change that ed 'f*'*8'" af the s.dinyse ,,,g,,,,,,,44,,g,,,i g,3,g,,,,,
- ggg, control not pr.es.ently lacinded la the
.e *
- a spe ^ -i ar -em,w. a e,,,,,on.t _ la.,s,,o,,e. ar more..... earn 9tence wquirement.
eenaequemme of an accident pmionely The changes requae' 3d la the setpoint evaluated; er123 create the ;:-- "a= of and thermalAydraunclindt cwves are a new or dEEerentIdad of accident kom aula the cosearvettve airection and i any aeuldeal pseeteenly evelasted; or,(s)
- "I'"I' ' ** I"8 II"I'*II***
twana h ha The deletion of the technical 1' .g.,gg osemiadya ha proved @8a"* al*8's ** ** *ld ***m smidenseseneerske n application of geneestore le simner to example (v) of e ibe standards for daarmining whether changes met ISiety to levolve siysincent became====d===to hvoin no basarde considerstloes: Upes sigadicanthasaade canalderadone by. entisfactory completion of construction 4 i providing certata examples (44 FR la connection with an operettas facility. 14879).The laceense la the bot channel a milaf granted kom an operating i' Feas liste and the total peeldag factor Fe restricsson that was impond becem the construction wee not yet completed usag g, ogs g., g, ,g) og losessenese.em and es-ast) changes whis emset y to involve causfactorily.This is latended to
==t hasards coseideratione: A involve only restrictions where it le a-- i plostdo power and I.lght Company; clianse whidi either moyiesult la some justined that construction has been 1 Considereden etleeuenos d incresee to the probability er completed eatisfactoruy.h deletions i Assionessent peegny Opersens consequenose of ar..:4 analysed mquested are to remove the restrictions tJoeness and propeeed pio Signincent accent er sedene la some way a safety placed on the use of the old steam staaerde Considereden Detonninemen saargia, best where the results of the generators with tubes plugged la excess of Rye (s) p(ercast. Lla==== conditione and Opportandy per pleertng change are clearly within an acceptable were place on the Turkey Point Plent. criterna with roepect to the eyetem er N U.S. Nuclear Regulatory componest speciBed la the Standard Unite a and 4.which mquires a new em.=wra= (thera==6taa) la Review plan: For amample, a change BCCS analyets be performed if credit le 1 considering leemance of amendmente to resulting tress the application of a eman to be taken for the unplugged j FacGity Operettas Licewm Nos. DPR-31 gennement of a previonely need configuration (maximum of five (5) and DPR-41.lessed to Entda power calculational model er deelpi method. percent tabe plugging) for the asw steem generatore upon settefactory complet.on j and Light Company (the beenese), for The godseties ta time selety mergle --- N ef the Tushey oint plant Unk resulting hem the lacrease la the Fa. of the smastruction seeociated with p j fios. 3 and,4 located la Dede County..' and Fe thalte are addressed la thw safety ;;;'r -- et of the steen generetore. Florida. evaluation m.:f" with the submittet Construction has been setlefectorily 1hese amendments would change the - andindicate (1)h AMad peak completed and the licenwe's submittel Technies! SpectScottone to support the eled temperature of120S* F and 1sr2' F ~ locludes new ECCS enelysis which lategratedproyam forveneelSua for emen and large beaklees of coolant asemnes e siaximrust tut.e plugging of reduceos to resolve the r __ J. 4 i to respectively, are witida the Eve (4) percmet.The resulta of the new 1 thermaal shock lesse and to take credtt a aindt of sans'F =p.an e la10. analyste indicate that for breska up to for :;- "- with the meer steam CFR 30.45, "? ^ Cdsarte 1er and includlag the doubleamded, i generatore is an amplegged (maximum of Emergrarycase Systems
- severemos of.e mector coolant pipe, the
) ave (S)paremat tube plugginal ) heIJaht Water at power ECCS cas perforse its function and le emangersdom. Changes are.,- M ter
- jalsedettemeldepartee fases wethis the a=yna-criteria of to CFR i
sotes which demoneeretes that the (1) homesse the het shammetFans helt euclease boulussettesmaginie d 0
y n w n nmnn.nuun.musa.mm n w w w w mmasw na m ww w ---.=-
==w w E l l Federal Register / Vol. 4g. No. too / Friday.' October 7.1g83' / Nottoes seetrictione placed en the old steen Board take this action wGIoccur very Bret prbto Rfteca (18) days prior le the gneratere are nolonger ble and ring conference scheduledin hfrequently, me new steam generatore he,. _ l-; but such as amended A request for a bearing or a petition entiefectorGy. peddon neuet eenefy the specl$ city for leave to intervene must be IUed with The
==laak is seeking public esquiremente described above. the Secretary of the Commisalon U.S. r comments on this proposed Not later than Sheen (14) days prior to Nuclear Regulatory r-=laasaa determinetloa. Any comuments received the Bret -
- r-' 4 conference Weebington. D.C 30658. Attention:
within 30 doye eher the date of schedulEin b p n : *- a petitioner Docketles and Service fireach, er may publication of this notice will b JabeB Sie a 1 ' - rt to the ptition to be delivered to the Coe mission's Public Intervene widch :eeust include a list of Document Room.tnF : 1 Street N.W sonsidendla any Anal dekrainetloa.The==8aaton wul m the contentions which are sought to be Weebington, D.C. by t se above date. moraally make a Baaldetermination . begekd in te methr. and b bade for Where petions are B ed during thelast ,ualees it receives a request for a each contention setforth with tea (to) days of the a< tice period. it le beerlag-seeeeeable speel8 city. Centendoes abaB scenested that the pr Jtioner promptly so Genesente abould be addmesed to the be limited to matters witble the scope of hform the Comunim' an by a tou.dree of the --8-iaa U.S. g, a aa under seasideration. A telephone salt to We etern Union at feco) e Nuclear tory r==iaata" petitionerwho falls to Rio such a 336.eo00 (la baseos I (goo) ses. cool. Weebington. D.C aessa. Atta: Dockettag suppl====* which endeBee em _ The Western Unior operater abould be and Service Branch. seguirements with scopect to et leset one given Detagram Identtocation Number By Nomsber s.1383. 6e b=maae esotention wGInot be permitted to 3F37 and the " " ' se .may Rio a request for a beartas p,gegpg,,,,,,,,, addrued h Stewab enageM M Pec Heleemanee M 6e = to Nee permitted tointervene become Operstlag Reactore Branch .1. to sum *CGI y and .to th.e procee. ding, ou.bloct to any Divlelos of Ucessing: pe.titlener.*e name ygby e,, pesemune,,r n &e er,gra. ag.we to and teie,ho.e m.mber. te,e da wisbn to parecipou es e partyin he latervene,and have the w ; rbo was maued; plant name: and pub!! cation t to fuByla the conduct of date and page number of tMs Federal
- *'I"*"pendon
" 88 I'9""t gy
- Including the opportunity to Eagister motice. A espy of the poetion and done for be preeest evidence and cr-aa a-a-s==
abould alee be seat to the Imacetin I witnesses, tegel Director. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I ,gg g e ., s ec os laam af a bearing le requested, the Comaleolon.Waebington. D.C 3o655. g g,g g Procu m Sw D ra--a==ta= wGl make a Anal and to Harold F. Rela. Esquire. , y,,,gg,,, omede Ueen deteradnation en the leone of no I,owenstela. Newman, Reis and b to CI'R Part 1 a eiplScant basarde consideration.'Ibe Amelted.103s cm =,*8ad Avenue, seque for a bewhg hw a hurun..e,dpunon fu by b skw Anal determination wGI seen to decide N.W.,W"'*CD.C sense, date. b r_. . _ o, an A,omic when ee bearagie bea No.nmeiy n a,aisons f-iea n Sdety and ucenshg Burd. dedped If the Baaldetermination is that the to latervene. amended petitions. l by b Commiedon or by b Chairman amendments request levolves no eu lesental tions and/or veste of the Atende Safety and ucensing signiacant basards onesidendon. the for erina mot be en l Board Panel, wGl rule on the request Comadesta may lasue the amendments obsent a determination by the and/or petition and the Secretary or b and make it effective, notwithstanding Comm!selon. the prealding officer of the desipend Atomic Sdey and ' ~-- the request for a hearing. Any hearing Atonde Sefety and uoensing Board Board wul toene a notice of bearing or ' beld would take place after lesuance of designated to rule on the petition and/or en cypropriate order. the a==ad= ante. ' sequest that the petitioner has made a As required by to CFR 2314 e If the Anal determination le that b substantial abowing of good cause for tion forleen tointervene shou set amendmente involve a elgrdficant the granting of a late petition and/or with particularity the laterest of hamde consideration, any hearing held request.ht determination will be the petitionerin the proceeding and wov.d take place before the leeuance or based upon a belancing of the factors how that interest me be affected by the any amendments. opecined in to CFR 1714(a)(1) (i)-(v) and Normally, the
==la=I=. wGl not a J14(d).. ' soeults of the .& petition r ebould speciAcaDy amp la the reasons leeve the'amendmente untG b For further details with rupect to thle why intervention abould be permitted expiretion of the 30 day notice period. ec6en, see b opplication for
- with particular reference to the Howeeer. ebould circumstances change amendments which is evellable for following factore:(1)h nature of the dwing the modce period auch that fauure Emblic inspection et the Comuniseloe's petitioner's right under the Act to be to act in a thmely way would result for ruolic Document Room.1n7 H Street, made e party to the proceeding. (3) the example.In dersting or abutdown of b N.W Washington. D.C., and at the asture and extent of the petitioner's fecGity, the Commiselon may leeve the Environmental and Urbana Affaire.
Ubrary. Florida laternational property $nancial, or other laterut la licanas amendmente before b the proceeding: and (3) the poselble expiretion of the ::0<iay notice period. University Miam!.Floride 33199. l effect of any ceder which may be provided thet its final determinetten to Deled at Bethesda. Maryland, th!s 3rd entered in the,.a t on the that the amendmente involve no day of October iss3. petitioner's laterest.h poetion abould =Arine=t basarde seasideration.N also identify the specific aspect (s) of the Saaldetermination wGl consider all yer the Nedser RegWetery e- --.a u- %4 '9** emblect matter of the proceeding as to public and State coaumente received. which petitioner wiebes to intervene. ~ saould the Commiselon takes this N ******"' C-Amy person wbe bee Sled a petition for action.it wGl publieb o notica of leave to latervene er who bee been isonence and provide for opportunity for M*"**""*******"3 edmitted se a party may amend the a bearing after leemance.N petition without requesting leave of the Commleelen expecte bt the need to
e.w%m ~~- g.wme. y.c m es% - g,mym m m. %,x s r
- g UNITED 5TATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~% WA SHINGTC N. D. C. 20555 5 ,1 %,o... # September 21, 1983 Martin H. Hodder, Esq. 1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Dear Mr. Hodder:
As I informed you in our last conversation, I passed on your The staff oral request for documents to the NRC staff. members I contacted were unable to identify some of the documents you requested from the titles given, and they suggested that I send you the following documents whic 26, 1983 Summary of Meeting Held With FP&L on January Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Program for Turkey (1) Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, dated January 31, 1983; Letter from S. Varga to R. Uhrig requesting information on pressurized thermal shock, dated Feb. 1, 1983; (2) Letter R. Uhrig to R. Varga supplying information on (3) thermal shock, dated March 25, 1983; SECY-83-79, Meetings with Selected Licensees Regarding Flux Reduction Programs Related to Pressurized Thermal (4) Shock, dated February 25, 1983; and dated SECY-82-465 Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS), (5) November 23, 1982. I believe these documents may provide you with the general information which you appear to be seeking. If these documents are insufficient to your needs, please submit any request for additional documents in writing, as we had agreed. Sincerely, i Richard P. Levi Attorney Office of General Counsel Harold Reis cc 10
~ mgegawowsmwesummw=m~ ~ y - mmm m:ia=am-r UNITa0 sTATss
- g NUCLEAM REGULATORY COMMISSION f
q,5 WAaene80 ton.D.C.30SSS . g f-o,.) fB 1 1983 -Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig.' Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Sox 529100 Miami, Florida 33152
Dear Dr. Uhrig:
. At the December 9.1982 meeting with the Commissioners, the staff presented results of its Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) studies as described in SECY 82-465. The staff was subsequently directed to. develop a Notice of
- Proposed Rulemaking that would establish an RTgr screening criterion.
require licensees to submit present and projected values of RTET. require early analysis and implementation of such flux reduction programs as are ' reasonably practicable to avoid reaching the screening criterion, and require plant-spec 1>fic PTS safety analyses before plants are within three. . calendar years of reaching the screening criterion. The staff's proposed screening values are an RTgof 270*F for plants and axial welds, and 300*F for circumferential we ds. . The Comission also noted and concurred that the staff should' meet with licensees of plants for which near-term flux reductions of factors of two to five would ensure that the screenin criterion would not be exceeded through-our service life, to determine the icensees' plans for such programs, and proposed issuance of 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters tb such licensees. if appropriate. following the meetings. We 'ncluded Turkey Point Plant. Units 3 and 4. in this group of plants based on the information available to us at that time. l On January 26, 1983. your personnel met with the staff at our request to discuss the program for ensuring that the screening criterion for PTS for Turkey Point 3 and 4 would not % exceeded. Based on your presentation and our discussions, we understand that Florida Power and Light Company has already initiated a detailed propram intended to achieve significant flux reductions i in the next few years. he plant specific data through fuel cycle 8 indicates j c that the screening criterion will not be exceeded prior to 1989 due to the i i inclusion of low-leakage cores. The naar tam flux reduction, which will be Unit' 3) will extend the time for reaching the screening,and Fall of 19 implemented for fuel cycle 9 (Spring of 1983 for Unit 4 1 criterion to 1995. This will be acccmplishad by reducing the partpheral' flux. Additional cera configurations are' being dvaluated which could result in further flux reduction , extending the time for reaching the screening criterion to 2004. In addition. Nyou have indicated that the goal of your integrated PTS program is to achieve s*.the ma'ximum reasonable flux reduction while maintaining full power capability. Mr. Joe Moba indicated that you plan to submit the infomation presented in ~ the meeting including projected schedules. We request that your submittal include the following, most of which was addressed in your presentation at the * { January 26 meeting: 11
mm.m -mmmmmm ,m.,__ u.a ~ I IO Dr.' Robert E. Uhrig, 1. Provide your assessment of the fluence experienced to date by the welds and plates in your pressure vessel, the rate of increase expected assuming future fuel cycles to which you are already committed, and a detailed description of the bases for the above (including surveil-lance capsule data and analysis methods, and generic methods or cor-relations used). 2. Using the 'above fluence infonnation, provide your assessment of the KT D" Presently existing in your pressure vessel welds and plates h utilnzing the methodology outlined in Appendix E to Enclosure A of S.ECY-8245, and the expected future rates of increase, and the expected dates when the applicable proposed screening criterion will be exceeded. 3. provide a description of the flux reduction measures that you have instituted and additional measures.that you are considering for your plant. Indicate your estimated schedule for the studies in progress. Include for each option: a. Description of fuel management and/or fuel removal and/or fuel replacement with dummy elements including an indication of power " level of outer assemblies in the axial and radfa1' directions for fut'ure cycles; b. Quantitative assessment of resulting flux reduction to critical welds and plates; c. Parametric study showing future RTNDT values resulting fron. both the earliest practicable implementation of the optics, and from the latest possible implementation of the plan that will still avoid exceeding the RTHDT screening criterion at the expiration of your operating license. d. Discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the option, partic-ularly emphasizing power reductions caused by the option. With respec,t to power reduction, discuss the magnitude of the reduction and the particular limit (e.g., hot channel factor DNBR, etc.) s causing the power reduction. Also analyze how much relief would tm necessary (with respect to the particular limit) to allow full power operation, and assess whether such relief would be an improve-ment to overall plant safety (considering LOCA, PTS, transients, etc.). 4. Discuss the alternatives in addition to flux reduction you are considering in your integrated program that will result in delaying or avoiding exceeding the RTNDT screening critation. e 12
- ~ .n ..w ~. n-=~~
- ,m..- =_ -
,x== .:n -w 3-Dr. Robert E.' Uhrig We request that the above infonnation be provided within '60 days of your receipt of this letter. We may request a meeting with you to discuss your cptions and plans after we have reviewed the above requested information and as your studies progress. OM8 clearance is not required for this request since it is being transmitted to fewer than 10 addressees. Sincerely, e ept / A Steven A. Varga. C ef Operating Reactors anch No. 1 Division of Licensing cc: See next page e e 9 e 5 e O L 1 e e i a e k q e s.' 13 e e-- ---,.,,~~,,-,-,_.--.-,-.n - - - - - ~ - - - + - -, ---- - ,.r- - - - - -
m e e - - es - w u m = ~ - m - z u _.~.~.~. _ _. =m - - = = Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power and Light Company cc: Harold F. Reis, Esquire James P. O'Reilly Lewenstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad Regional Administrator - Region !! 1025 Conne:ticut Avenue, N.W. U. S. Nuclear Ragulatory Commission 1 I Suite 1214 101 Marietta Street - Suite 3100 Washington, D. C. 20036 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Norman A'. Coll, Esquire Steel.. Hector and Davis 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building i Miami, Florida 33131 Mr. Henry Yaeger, Plant Manager Turkey Point Plant Florida Power and Light Company P. O. Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 i Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4', 'Ho11and Building ~ ' Tallahassee, Florida -32304 Administrator l Department of Environmental Regulation I Power Plant Siting Section . State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road i. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ~ Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Post Office Box 1207
' Homestead', Florida 33030 l e G e 0 e 0 14 t
m,mm-m.m m mm.m wm m,,.m _ m, m . m. e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 5th day of April, 1985 copies of the foregoing Brief for Federal Appellees e were served on counsel for all parties by placing a copy in 'the United States mail, first class service, postpaid, to the following:- MARTIN H..HODDER, Esq. 1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami, FL 33138 WILLIAM S. JORDAN III, Esq. Harmon, Weiss & Jordan 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 HAROLD F. REIS, Esq. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 DIRK D. SNEL, Esq. Appellate Section Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530 ^^^ ^ MICHAEL B. BLUME Senior Attorney Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (202) 634-1493 April 5, 1985 1
M> N F2 w Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wedneoday January 23, 1965 / Notices 3047 m T E.
===. I to the proposed sale by the Plan of a duties respecting the plan solely in the issued. since that date of publication of 10n 1:mited partnership interest [the Interest) interest of the participants and the last monthly notice which was I m Western hiud Co.. limited to ). beneficiaries of the plan and in a published on December 31.1934 (49 FR klichael Pisias. lr the trustee of the prudent fashion in accordance with 50794) through lanuary 14.1985. r Plan, provided that the sales price is no section 404(a)(1)(B)of the Act:notdoes g less than the fair market salue of the it affect the requirement of section NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF laterest at the-time the sale is 401(a) of the Code that the plan must ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO E n. censummated. oper,te for the exclusive benefit of the FACILITY OPERATING UCENSE AND - For a more comp!c'e statement of the employees of the employer maintaining PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT g
- f. cts and representations supporting the the plan and their beneficiaries.
IIAZARDS CONSIDERATION p Department's decision to grant this (2) These exemptions are DETERMINATION AND g I3 esemption refer to the notice of supplemental to and not in derogation OPPORTUNITY FOR llEARING p proposed exemption published oc of, any other prmisions of the Act and/ ne Commission has made a proposed p an December 4,1984 at 49 FR 47a'J. or the Code. including statutory or determination that the following L For Further Information
Contact:
htr. administrative exemptions and amendment requests involve no i ie Dnid bl. Cohen of the Department, transitional rules. Furthermore. the fact significant haurds consideration. Under 4t the telephone (202) 523-e671. (This is not a that a transaction is subject to an the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR toll-free number.) admimstratise or statutory exemption is 5092 this means that operation of the 'Y l Shebo3 gan Oral and hf axillofacial n t dispositive of whether the facihty in accordance with the proposed he Associates. Ltd. Defined Contribution transaction is in f sci a prohibited amendments would not (1)imolve a e -Plan) Located in Sheboygan. '#8j)"'[,"hailabihty of these significant increase in the probabihty or ed c nsequences f an accident previously exemptions is subject to the express ? to IPnhibned Transaction Exemption 85-24. condation that the material facts and evaluated, or (2) create the possibihty of a new or different kind of accident from Ese :pt;on Appl. cation No. D-5756] representations contained in each Lem# tion application accurately describes all any accident previously evaluated, or (3) r aterial terms of the transaction which im Ive a significant reduction in a The restrictions of section 4rda), is the subject of the exemption. margin of safety. The basis for this 406{b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of tha Act and Signed at Washington. D C this 17th day proposed determination for each g the sanctions resulting from the of lanuary.1985. amendment request is shown below. application of section 49*5 of the Code. Elliot 1. Daniet. The Commission is seeking public g by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) Acting Assistant Administrctorfor comments on this proposed through (E) of the Code, shall not apply Regulations andInterprerotwn,. on,ce or detennination. Any comments receised ja to the proposed sale by the individually Pension and it'c/hre Benefit /hyrums. US with 30 days after the date of d.rected account of Richard F. Department oflobor. publication of this notice will be klarrissey, hl D. (Dr. Af arrissey) in the [nt Doc. 891731 Filed 1-2245; e 45 am] considered in making any final Plan of five units in the Limited aumo coes as,s.es.es determination.%e Commission will not Partnership of Doctors Park In estment normally make a final de termination Club to Dr. Aforrissey for cash in the unless it receives a request for a ~~ amount of $34.398.43. provided that suc's NUCLEAR REGULATORY hearing. smount is not less than the fair market COMMISSION Comments should be addressed to the value of the units on the date of sale. For a more complete statement of the Monthly Notice; Applications and Secretary of the Commission. U.S. facts and representations supporting the Amendmenta To Operating Ucenses Nuclear Reguistory Commission, l Department's decision to grant this involving no Significant Hazards Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention: Of esemption refer to the notice of Considerations Docketing and Service Branch. s I proposed exemption published on By February 22.1985, the licensee may r December 4.1984 at 49 FR 47459.
1. Background
file a request for a hearing with respect E-For Further Infonnation
Contact:
his. Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L) 97-to issuance of the amendment to the i ICatherine D. Lewis of the Department. 415. the Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission subject facility operating license and telephone (202) 5234882. (This is not a (the Commission)is pubhshing its any person whose interest may be toll-free number.) regular monthly notice. Public Law 97 affected by this proceeding and who s k 415 revised section 189 of the Atomic wi.hes to participate as a party in the CeneralInformation Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Proceeding must file a written petition of 7 The attention of interested persons is Act), to require the Commission to leave to intervene. Requests for a directed to the following: publish notice of any amendments hearing and petitions for leave to (1) The fact that a transaction is the issued. or proposed to be issued. under a intervene shall be filed in accordance subject of an exemption under section new provision of section 189 of the Act, with the Commission's " Rules of l(p 408(a) of the Act and/or section This provision grants the Ccmmission Practice for Domestic Ucensing g er$(c)(2) of the Code does not reheve a the authority to issue and make Proceedings"in to CFR Part 2. If a Educiary or other party in interest or immediately effective any amendment request for a hearing or petition for e disquahfied person from certa;n other to an operating license upon a leave to intervene if filled by the above ? provisions of the Act and/or the Code. . determinatiort by the Commission that date, the Commission or an Atomic mcluding any prohibited transaction such amendment involves no significant Safety and ucensing Board, designated prosisions to which the exemption does harards consideration. notwithstandmg by the Commission by the Chairman of r g not apply and the general fiduciary the pendency before the Commission of the Atomic Safety and ucensing floard m responsibihty provisions of section 404 a request for a hearing from any person. Panel, will rule on the request and/or i { of the Act, which among other things This monthly notice includes all petition and the Secretary or the require a fiduciary to discharge his amendments issued or proposed to be designated Atomiv Safety and utensing !i! m s k w
~ ,.T 4 3048 I'ed:r l Register / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wedneadzy Jtnutry 23, 1985 / Notices Board willissue a notice of hearing oc hearing. Any hearing held would take based upon a balancing of the factors an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a place after issuance of the amendment specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(IHv) and If the final determination is that the 2.714(d). peution for leave to intenene shall set amendment involves a significant For further detaus with respect to thls ferth with particulanty the interest of hazards corWderation. any hearing held action, see the applicaHon for the petitioner in the proceeding. and would take place before the hsuance of how that interest may be affected by the any amendment. amendment which is available forpublic results of the proceeding. ne petition Normally, the Commission will not Inspection at the Commission's Public, should specifically explain the reasons issue the amendment until the Document Roon 1717 l{ Street. NW., why intervention should be permitted expiration of the 30-day notice period. Washington D.C., and at the local wit'h particular reference to the flowever. should circumstances change public document room for the particular following factors:(1)ne nature of the during the notice period such that failure facihty involved. ~ petitioner's right under the Act to be to act in a timely way would result, for Boston Edison Company Docket No.30 made a party to the proceeding:(2) the example,in derating or shutdown of the 2s3 Pilgrim Nudear Power Station, nature and event of the petitioner's facility, thtt Commission may issue the Pipnouth Massachusetta property, fir.ancial. or other interest in license amendment before the the proceeding: and (3) the possible
- piration of the 30-day notice period.
Date of amendment pquest October 16.1964. efect of any or..er which may be entered provided that its fmal determination la in the proceeding on the petitioner's that the amendment involves no Description ofamendment request-interest. The petition should also significant hazards consideration. De ne proposed amendment requesta identify the specific aspect (s) of the final determination will consider all modification of the Technical subject matter of the proceedmg as to blic and State comments received Specifications to reflect changes in the which petitioner wisher to intervene. {'l ". action is taken. Should the reporting requirements outlined in to An) person who has filed a petition for Comminsn take Ws achon. H wal CFR 5072 and 50.73 and gu! dance leave to intenene or who has been pubbsh a notice ofissuance and provide prosided in the Commission's Generic admitted as a part) may amend the for opponunny for a hearing after Letter 83-43. Specifically, the Technical petition without requestir's lease of the issuance. The Commission expects that Specifications would be modified as Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the the need to take this action wdl occur rollows; first prehearing conference scheduled in V"Y I"I"9"'4 1.ne term " reportable occurrence" the proceedmg. but such an amended A nquest f r a hearing or a pet'tlon would be replaced by " reportable petition must satisfy the specificity f r lease to intervene must be filed with nent ** requirements described abose. the Secn tary of the Commission. U.S.
- 2. Section 6.9.B entitled. " Reportable Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to
",'[8" 'Y Comm ss Occurrences." would be removed. Since the removal of this entire section would the first prehearing conference g scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner Docketing and Senice Branch, or may shall file a supplement to the petition to be deliscred to the Commission's Pubhc perating e$ents,"i Mport changes in intervene which must include a hst of Document Room.1717 !! Street. NW., the licensee a organization, that the contentions w!nch are sough to be Washington. D.C., by the above data. "9 "'"' " " D' " " b' litigated in the matter, and the bases for Where petitions are f. led during the last 6.2. "Organizauon. each contention set forth with ten (10, sys of the notice period,it is 3
- "I'"" I" 8'*U " H to the reasonable specificity. Contentions shall requested that the petitioner promptly so.nquinments of Spec cabon6S be limited.to matters'within the scope of fle I
he Co "b !! f w uld be changed to " requirements of the amendment under consideration. A ne call 'e tern nion at 800) either to CFR 50.72 or 10 CR 50.73." petitioner who fails to file such a 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-4700).
- 4. A time of one hour for reportmg a supplement v.hich satisfies these The Western Union operator should be safety hmit violation would be added to requirements with respect to at least one given Datagram Identification Number Secu n 6.7.B.
contention will not be permitted to 3737 and the folicwing message
- 5. A time hmit of 30 days for participate as part.
addressed to / Bronch Chief): PetiUoner's submittmg a safety hmit giolation report Those permitted to inten ene become name and telephone numben date would be added to Section 6.7.D. parties to the proceedmg. subject to any petit on was mailed plant name; and
- 6. Section 6.5.D.7.g would be changed limitation in the order granting leave to publication date and page number of to require the licensee's Nuc! car Safety intenene and have the oppom.nity to this Federal Register notice. A copy of Review and Audit Committee to review participate fullyin the conduct of the the petmon should also be sent to the "all events which are required by 10 hearing includmg the opportunity of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear CFR 50.73 to be reported to the NRC in present evidence and cross-examine Regulatory Commistion. Washington, writing."
witnesses. D.C. 20555. and to the attorney for the
- 7. Section 3.9 BJ would be changed to licensee.
If a hearing is requested. the require NRC notification within one Commission will make a final Nentimely filings of petitions for leave hour after incoming power is not determination on the issue of no to intervene. amended peutions, available from both startup and significant hazards consideration. The supplemental petitions and/or requests shutdown transfonners and reactor final determination will serve to decide for hearing will not be entertained operation is continuing under certain when the hearing is held. absent a determination by the permissible conditions. If the final determination is that the Commission, the presiding officer or the
- 8. Reporting requirements would be amendment request involves on Atomic Safety and Licensing Board deleted from Section 3.6.D.3. 3 9.B.1, significant hazards consideration. the
. designated to rule on the peution and/or 3.9.B 4 and 3.9.B.5. Commission may issue the amendment request. that the petitioner has made a Basisforproposedno significant and make it immediately effective, substantial showing of good cause for horards consideration determination the granting of a late petition and/or notwithstanding the request for a request. That determination will be %e Commission has provided guidance for the application of the standards in to
Federal Register / Vol. So, No.15 / Wednesday, January 23, 1985 / Notices 3049 CFR 50 92 by prosiding certain esamples administrative improvements designed transient described in the Final Safety red pa FR 148701of actions hkely to invoke to increase the effectiseness of the Analysis Report (FSAR). no significant hazards considerations. station personnel. Their responsibihties (2) Create the possibility of a new or is one of these is example "(sii) A change for maintaining plant safety are not different kind of accident from any la make a license conform to change in diminished and the changes will not accident previously evaluated because lic the regulations where the license change physically affect any safety related the proposed Technical Specification
- r. suits in sery minor changes to facihty s> stems. The staff. therefore, proposes does not allow any new modes of operations clearly in keepmg with the to conclude that the hcense amendment operation beyond that normally n gulat'ons." This example applies to would not (1) involve a signif. cant performed at operating boiling water er the proposed amendment since it is increase in the probability or reactors (DWRs).
intended to conform to changes in the consequences of an accident previously (3)Involse a significant reduction in regulations which hase little,if any, evaluated. (2) create the possibihty of an the margin of safety because a 4.8 kw/ft 4 effect on facility operation. accident of a type different from any (or greater) margm to the 1% plastic Since the appUcation for amendment previously evaluated, or (3) involve a strain limit exists for the worst case msches changes which are similar to significant reduction in a margin of transient desenbed in the FSAR. r esamples for which no significant safety. On this basis. the staff has made Additionally, this request is of a type hazards consideration exists. the staff an initial determination that the which was specifically cited in the has made a proposed determination that proposed amendment is not hkely to Federal Register (48 FR 14870) as an the appbcation ins olves no sigmficant involve significant hazards example of hcense amendment not hazards consideration. considerations. invohing significant hazards and LocciPublic Document Room localPublic Document Room therefore not requinng opportunity for locchon Plymouth Pubhc Library. North locatwn Plymouth Pubhc Library North prior hearings. That is: Street. Ply mouth. Ma ssachusetts 02360. Street. Plymouth. Massachusetts 02360. Attorney for hcensee: W.S. Stow e. A ttorney for licensee: W.S. Stowe. MI ^ d*nge which either may n sult in Esq. Boston Edison Company. 800 Esq. Boston Edison Company. 800 ',,P' nathred Bo3 ston Street,36th Floor. Boston, Boylston Street. 36th Floor, Boston. 1 accident or may reduce m some wa> a safet> Massachusetts 02199. Massachusetts 02199 margin. but where the results of the change NRC Bmnch Chief: Domenic B. NRC Bmnch Chief: Domenic B. are clear!> within all acceptable ontena with Vassallo. Vassallo. respect to the system or component speuted I" ' h' S' *"d *'d R'" II* "~ i Boston Edison Company, Docket No. 50-Commonwealth Edison Company, 293. Pilgrim Nuclear Pow er Station, Docket No. 50-265. Quad Cities Nuclear The staff has resiewed the hcensee's Ply mouth, Massachusetts Power Station, Unit 2, Rock Island signifiunt hazards consideration Date of amendinent request: County, Illinois determination and, based upon this Nusember 9.1984. Date of amendment request; resiewed, the staff has made a proposed Descriptwn of amendment request: December 4.1964 determination that the apphcation for The amendment would change the Description of amendment ivgueste amendment mvolves no significant 3 Administratne Controls Section of the This amendment would increase the hazards consideration. Technical Specifications as follows: Technical Specification limit on the Loco / Public Document Room 1.The title " Station Manager" linear heat generation rate (LliCR) for location: Mohne Pubhc Library. 5M-17th becomes "Nuc; ear Operations sixteen Barner Fuel Test Assembhes in Street, Ilhnois 61265 Manager." the Barrier Fuel Demonstration Program Attorney forlicensee: Mr. Robert G.
- 2. A new position entitled " Technical from 13.4 kw/ft to 15.0 kw/ft for the Fitzgibbons. Ir., Isham, Lincoln. & Beale.
Station liead" is established to oversee remainder of the current Operating Three First National Plaza. Suite 5200. the On-site Safety and Performance Cycle 7.The purpose of the change is to Chicago. Illinois 60002. Group and the Technical Groep at the enable the licensee to properly perform NRC Bronch Chief. Domenic B. plant.This new position will report to a control rod withdrawal ramp test at Vassallo. t the Nuclear Operations Manager and the end of Cycle 7 without exceedmg the Consumers Power Company. Dociet No. l will assume from him the responsibihty current LliGR limits. 50-255, Palisades Plant. Van Buren of Chairman of the Operations Review Basis forproposedno sigmficant County, Michigan Committee (ORC). hozords considention determmation:
- 3. A new position entitled " Chief The licensee's submittal of December 4.
Date of amendment request: October Chemical Engineer" and a chemistry 19&l contains an evaluation of the 25,1984. technical staff are established.The proposed action. and a basis for a Description of amendment request:. person in this position will report to the proposed no significant hazards The proposed amendment would: (1) Nuclear Operations Manager and will consideration determination.The Correct a statement in the Technical be a member of ORC. licensee's proposed determination is Specifications that identifies which
- 4. Alternate members of ORC to serve based on the following considerations.
waste gas decay tank is to be chosen for on a temporary basis would be The criteria for defining a significant release to minimize the amount of appointed by the Nuclear Operations hazards consideration is set forth in to radioactivity being released. and (2) Mana2er instead of the ORC Chairman. CFR 50.92(c). Applying these entena to correct the setpoint specified in the 5 An addition is made to the the proposed action, operation of Quad Technical Specifications for the liigh statement of authority for ORC to clanfy Cities Unit 2 in accordance with the Range Noble Gas Monitor. Main Steam that it can recommend proposals related proposed ainendment, would not: Safety and Dump Vals e Discharge Line to nuclear safety or reject those which (1)Involse a significant increase in Monitor and Engineered Safeguards do not satisfy the Committee's concerns. the probability or consequences of an Room Vent System Monitor. Basis forproposedno significant accident previous)y esaluated because Basis forproposedno significant hazards consideration determinotwn: adequate marg:n to the 1% plastic strain hozords considemtion determwation-The proposed changes are all limit is maintained for the worst case The Commission has provided guidance
M 19N 3050 Federal Registee / V:1. 50. M.15 / WednesdIy. Unurry 23,19BS / Noticoe ' 4 g concerning the appheation of the previously used black (highly.absorbirgt) S ecifications, the analytical methods % P standards in to CFR 50.92 by providing APSRs. used to demonstrate conformance win t ertain esamples (48 FR 14870. April 6. Basis forproposedno significont the Technical Specifications and the - e e 1901 One of the examples (i) of actions horoids considemtion determination regulations were not significantly not hkely to involve a significant The Commission has pmvided guidanw changed. and those analytical methsh e haurds consideration relates to purely concerning the application of the have previously been found acceptabis. ' administrative changes to the Technical standards in 10 CFR 50 92 by providing Hus, this reload and the proposed s j Spet ifications such as corrections of certain examples (48 F1t 14870). Example license amendments reflecti it appear - t trors The proposed change (1) above is (iii) of the types of amerdmente not to be encompassed by examp (iii) afN . l needtd to correctl identify the waste likel> to involve significant hazards amendments not likely to involve 3 cu decay tank with the least considerations is an amendment to significant hazards considerations.Os-i.dioactivity for releasing and change reflect a core reload where: this basis, the Commission proposes le' (2) above will correct the setpoint (1) No fuel assembhes significantly determine that these amendments do set setting for those monitors which are different from those found previoasly invovie significant hazards m used for monitoring potential high level acceptable to the Commission for a considerations. W releases after an accident. The setpoints previous core at the facility in question Loco /Pttblic Document Room a wcre enoneously specified at the low are involved: location: Oconee County Ubrary. 501 !n ela for routine releases. (2) No significant changes are made to West Southbroad Street. Walhalla. I Therefore. because this amendment the acceptance criteria for the Technical South Carolina. request invohes admimstratise changes Specifications: Attorneyforlicensee [. Michael of the types specified in esample (i) of (3) The analytical methods used to McGarry. I!!. Bishop. Uberman. Cook. the Commission's guidance. the staff demonstrate conformance with the Purcell and Reynolds.1200 Seventeenth proposes to determine that the proposed Techmcal Specifications and regulations Street NW., Washington. D.C. 20036 o, t s g c nt1y an n a changes would not insolve a signif cant NRCBranch Chief John F.Stolz. I 9 azards consideration ^ such methods acceptable Duquesne Ught Company, Docket No. "I g, [" This particulaf reload involves the 50-334. Beaver Valley Power Station. b . 3t5 remsertion of109 fuel assemblies of a Unit No.1. Shippingport. Pennsylvania South Rose Street. Kalamazoo. Michigan type previously appros ed and used and g, Date ofomendment request: he Attorney forlice :see: Judd L Bacon. ar( B November 4.1964. pe % e k BZ f Fsquire. Consumers Power Company, assemblies are the same as previously Descr@ tion of amendment request ?12 West Michigan Asenue. Jackson, approsed assemblies in terms of fuel his is an application for an amendment Mahigan 49201. rods end grid. end fittings, and guide to Operating Ucense DPR-66, revising NRCBmnch Chief: John A. Zwolinski. tubes and d:ffer only slightly in the use the Technical Specifications to reflect Duke Pow er Compan). Dockets Nos. 50 of Zircaloy spacer grids rather than the flow assumptions used for the 2t>9. 50-2"0. and 50-287. Oconee Nuclear inconelIntermediate S cer grids.%e Postulated rod bank withdrawal Station. Urtits Nos-1. 2 and 3. Oconee use of the Mark BZ fue esembly has accident in the Updated Final Safety ss epo Th umed ow y ewed and approved Count 3. South Carolina e{ pre Date of amendment request-The Cycle 8 control rods differ from by use of two of the three operstmg December 19.1R those of' Cycle 7 in that gray APSRs are reactor coolant loops. Currently, the Description of amendment requese to be utilized instead of the previously specifications require only one loop be The proposed amendments would revise used black APRSs.The gray APSRs in operation for Mode 3. ne proposed the Techmcal Specifications (TSs) to have a grater absorber length than the change would require that two loops be support the operation of Oconee Unit 2 APRSs used in previous reloads and in operation for Mode 3. at full rated power during the upcoming utihze an inconel absorber instead of Basisforpmposedno significant Cycle 8. The proposed amendment the Ag-In-Cd alloy. According to the boroids consideration determination: request changes the following areas: analyses described in DPC-RC-2004, The Commission has provided guidance
- 1. Rod Position Limits (TS 3.5.2); and "Oconec Unit 2. Cycle 8 Reload Report."
concerning the apphcation of these
- 2. Power imbalance Limits (TS 3 5.2)-
the gray APSRs will not adversely affect standards by providmg certain To support the license amendment Cycle 8 operation. De Commission has examples (48 FR 14870). One of these, request for operation of Oronee Unit 2 previously approved the use of gray Example (ii). invoh mg no significant during Cycle 8. the hcensee submitted. APSRs. hazards considerations is "A change as an attachment to the application. a Thus this core reload involves the use that constitutes an additional limitation. Duke Power Company (DPC) Report. of fuel assemblies and control rods that restriction, or control not presently DPC-RD-2004. "Oconee Unit 2. Cycle 8 are not significantly different from those included in the technical specifications: Reload Report." A summary of the Cycle found previously acceptable to the for example, a more stringent 8 operating parameters is mcluded in the Commission for a previous core at this surveillance requirement." The report. along with safety analyses. facihty. The request for amendment requested change matches the example During the refueling outage.109 fuel changes the TSs to reflect new operating and the staff, therefore, proposes to assembhes will be reinserted. similar to limits based on the fuel and control rods characterize it as involving no those previously used, and 68 fuel to be inserted into the core. These sigmficant hazards consideration. assemblies will be discharged and parameters are based on the new localPublic Document Room replaced by new but substantially physics of the core and fall within the location: B. F. Jones Memorial Ubrary, similar assemblies of the Mark BZ type. acceptance criteria. 683 Frar.klin Avenue. Ahquippa. Additionally. Cycle 8 will incorporate In the ana!yses supporting this reload. Pennsylvania 15001. gray (less-absorbing) axial power there have been no sigmficant changes Attorneyforlicensee Gerald shaping rods (APSRs)instead of the in acceptance criteria for the Technical Chamoff. Esquire. Jay E. Silberg. gw ge-yne em h
l [ Federal Register / Vol 50. No.15 / Wednesday. january 23, 1985 / Notices 3851 j wrc. Sh.w. Pittman. Potts, and Descnption of ornendment reque.se Trowbridge.1800 Al Street NW. l 1ronbndge.1600 h1 Street NW-The purpose of the amendment is to Washiraton. D.C. 20030s Ush.ngton. D.C. 20036. request a change in the Unit 1 Technical FRCRmoch Chief; A.Schwencar. ArcBvnch Chief Sicven A. Varga-Specifications Table 3.3,2-2.De p gg g g Dodet No. 50-387. Suaquehanna S4 ease f I t e in Indiana and Afichigan Dectne Company. I '$5'g'y',P] g c 9 9, Dectric StaGoa.Unu 1.breme County., j tw ket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316. Donald water level be chnged from level 2 to PenneIvansa
- c. Cook Nuclear Plant. Unit No. 2.
Les el 1 in order to seduce the number of Berrien County, Michigan challenges to the Safety Rehef Valves Date of amendment request: j Date of amendment nymt; (SRV). He charyae is consisteat with the November 13.19H. I NRC recommendations in item to of Description of sonendment mquest December 3.19M. Desce; tion ofcarendment n quest: NUREG-0737 Section 11 K.3 " Reduction ne purpose el the amendment requent The proposed amendment would make of Challenges and Failures of Relief is to propc.e changes to the t O inges to the Technical Specification. Vahes--Feasibdity Study and S stem Susque'ianna Steam Electric Station it 3 for D. C. Cook Nuclear Ent Urdt Nos. I hiodification." Unit 1 Tv.hnical Specification to and 2 to require at least two reactor Basis forproposMno sigmfroont incorporan the changes necemry to roo? nt loops be in operation during hazards mtsidemtion deterrninatiors support the 914nt modifications re. quired rule 3 unless the rearf or trip breakers The licensee in his letter dated October to comply v.ath License Condition mere disconnected and to require at 31,1964. stated that the proposed change 2 C.(17)(b)(2).The changes proposed in lut one reactor coolant loop be in does not:(t) lavolve a significant Tables 211-1, 3.3.1-1. 3.3.1-2. and operation if the reactor trip breakers are increase in the probabibty or 4.3.1.1-1 reflect the addition of a lesel dm onnected. consequences of an amident previously transmitter to indicate Saarn Dixharite Se fsepmposed neymfit unt eutuated.(2) create the possibility of a Volume Water Level-liieh. Preslously bacnis conside ration determination; new or different kind of accident from only a float switch was used for TI e Commission has prmided guidance any saident previously evaluated. or (3) indication. In Table 3.3.6-1 the proposed conrerr.ing the appbcation of the involve a sigmficant reduction in maritta change imposes an additional restriction s'and.rds in to CFR 50.92 by providing of safety.The NRC staff agrees with the by increasing the miaimum number of cert.in cumples (48 FR 14870, April 6, licensee's evaluation in this regard and operable channels newssary pee trip 1983). One of the esamples (i) of an proposes to find the proposed changes function from one to two.De final action not hkely to intoh e a significant to Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-2 prcposed change en page 3/4 6-33 is haards consideration is a purely involve no significant hazards administratise in natun 'he addition of adcr.Mistratise change to technical consideration. ne Commission has footnote " " Initial setpomt. Final i spnif. cations for exampic. a change to provided guidance conceming the setpoint to be determined during startup ,e whiese consistency throughout the application of the no significant hazards testing following the first refueling technical specifutions. carrection of an consideration standards by proddmg outage. Any required change to this ew. or a change in nomenclature. ne certain examples (48 FR 148 0). One of setpoint shall be submitted to the pmposed change is like this esample in the esamples of actions not hkely to Commission within 90 days of test ~ l that the Final Safety Anal) sis Rtport im oh e a significant hazards completion" a!!ows the licensee to l d was pr pared and reviewed on the basis consideration exarr pie (vi). is a change verify through testing the preslously of two reactor coolant loops in operation which either may result in some calculated setpoint and correct the I danng mode 3 unless the reactor trip increase to the probability or entculated value if necessary.%ts breakers were disconnected and then consequences of a previously.enalyzed change clarites the fact that the setpoint or4 one loop need be in operation.%e accident or may redum in some way a conta'.ned in the technical spedficabeas orig 2nal Technical SpeciLcations safety margin.but where the results of is a calculated valse requiring moorrectly requires only one loop be in the change are clearly within all verification through testing. eperation in mode 3. hot st.ndby. He acceptable criteria with respect to the Bosis forproposedno sigmficonf propou d change is to correct the error system or component specified in the boroids considerttion determination: in the Technical Specifications. On the Standard Review Plam For example. a ne bcensee in his letter dated bem of the abcm. the Commission change resulting from the apphcation of Nos ember 13,1984. proposed that the p% poses to conclude that the proposed a small refinement of a previously used modifications do not involve a ch.nges im olves a no signihcant calculational model or design method. significant hazards consideration.De hazards consideration. The change to Table 3.3.2-2 may Commission has pruvided guidance Loco / Public Document Raom constitute a reduction in some way of conceming the application of the me locctisn: Wude Reston Palenske the safety margin, but is still within all sigrificant hazards consideration Memarial Librar). 500 Wrket Street. St. acceptable criteria with respect to the standards by prmidmg certain los(ph. h!ichigan 49085. system or component.Herefore. the examples (48 FR 148701. One of the Attorneyforlicensce: Cerald proposed change is encompassed by this examples of actions not Lkely to involve Ch.rnoff. Esquire. Sha w. Pattman. Potts example and on that basis the NRC staff a significant hazards consideration. and Trowbridge 1800 Al Street NW., proposes to find this proposed change example (ii) involves a change tinal does not involve a significant hazards amstitutes an additional haitation. Washington. D.C. 20036, restriction, or control not presently consideration. NRC Brunch Chief Slesen A. Varga. Locof Public Document Room included in the technical specifications: Pennsylvan.ia Power & IJght Company. lomrion: Osterhout Free Library. For example a more stringent Docket No. 56-387. Susquehanna Steam Reference Department. 71 South surveillance requirement. All the Dectric Stahon. Unit 1 lanterne CouMy, Frankbn Street. Wilkes. Barre. proposed technical specification @ama Penns)1vania 18701. chag 9 W Ne the last constitute an Date of amendment request. October Attorney forlicensee:Tay Silberg. additional limitation end. thus, fall 31.1984. Esquire. Shaw. Pittman. Potts a within example (ii) of actions not likely 1 l
l ? l gr J 3052 Fed:rcl Register / Vol. 50, No.15 / Wcdnesd:y, Dnurry 23, 1985 / N:tices ) to invoh e significant hazards addition of barrier cladding used to standard control rod assemblies during
- considerations.The last proposed
' reduce cladding failures due to pellet the Unit 2 refueling outage. no Ilybrid I change is administrative and therefore clad interaction. The proposed %s Control Rod (IllCR) Assemblies have example (i)-a purely administrative would also change:(1)ne operating . been designed by General Electric (GE)
- change to technical specifications: For limit minimum critical power ratio to be used as direct replacement for the example, a change to achieve (MCPR) values for all fuel types for present control rod assemblies.ne consistency throughout the technical Cycle 7 operation: and (2) would original control rods contained only i
specifications, correction of an error, or incorporate the maximum everage boron carbide, B.C. as the absorbing ? a change in nomenclature-applies, planar linear heat generation rate material.ne new assembly design uses. Based on the above discussion the NRC (MAPLllCR) Sersus planar average B.C absorber cubes and three solid l staff proposes to find that the above exposure curves for the new fuel hafnium rods in the outside edge wing. changes do not involve a significant assemblies.ne Commission has his new design willlengthen control hazards consideration. provided guidance fur determining rod lifetime. LocalPublic Document Room whether a proposed amendment ne description of these control rods Location: Osterhout Free Library, involves a significant hazards was submitted to the NRC by General Reference Department. 71 South consideration (48 FR 14870). An example Electric in topical report NEDE-22290. Franklin Street. Wilkes-Barre, of an amendment that is not hkely to Based on the staff's evaluation of the I Pennsylvania 18701. Involve a significant hazards information provided in (a) NEDF-22290. Attorneyfor licer'see: lay Silberg. consideration is "(iii) * * *, a change - (b) a meeting with GE representatives, t Esquire. Shaw, Pittman. Potts a resulting from a nuclear reactor com and (c) responses to NRC staff Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW., reloading,if no fuel assemblies questions, the staff concluded that there Washington, D C. 20036. significantly different from those found is reasonable assurance that the NRC Branch Chief: A. Schwencer, previously acceptable to the NRC for a substitution of Type IlilCRs for other previous core at the facility in question approved CE control rod blades will not Philadelphia Electric Compstny, Public are involved.This assumes that no result in unacceptable hazards to the Service Electnc and Gas Company, significant changes are made to the pubhc and should, in fact, result in Delmarva Power and Light Company. acceptance criteria for the technical improved control blade performance and Atlantic City Electric Company, specifications, that the analytical and a positive contribution to reactor Docket No. 50-277, Peach Bottom methods used to demonst: ate safethposed amendment to an Atomic Pow er Station. Unit No. 2. York conformance with the technical Ap County, Pennsylvama specifications and regulations are not operating license for a facility involves signif cantly changed and the NRC has no significant hazards consideration if l Date of amendment request: pWously found such methods operation of the facility in accordance September 7,1934. 'CC'P' we h proposa emendmd M Description of amendment request: ghe Co rriission's staff considers the n t (1)inmin a sign cant hase in The proposed amendment would revise above two changes to be similar to the probability or consequences of an the Unit 2 Technical Specifications to: example (iii) because the staff has (1) Establish operating limits for all fuel previously reviewed the barrier cladding accident prrn yly evaluated; or (2) C k W Y I*"*"' types for the upcoming Cycle 7 fuel design and found that the addition different kind of accident from any operation: (2) establish the Maximum of the Zirconium liner to the cladding previously evaluated; or (3) involve a i Average Planar Linear Heat Generation does not result indifferent operating significant reduction in a margin of Rate (MAPLllCR) for all fuel types for characteristics or safety margine frorn safety.The staff has reviewed the Cycle 7 operation; (3) permit operation those of the non. barrier fuel.ne proposed change and the related topical with hafnium (General Electric Ilybrid I) proposed change in the operating limit control rods: (4) modify bases to delete MCPR causing a reduction in values will report. The licensee concludes that the reference to specific shutdown margin not decrease the safety margin because Proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and provided by Stanby IJquid Control the core loading Cycle 7 refueling is based on the fo!!owing discussion, the System to reduce need for future cycle such that calculations ind.cate that staff concur with the conclusion. dependent revisions: and (5) modify that transients would be milder than those of The materials evaluation, which MAPLHCR reduction function for single the previous cycle and would result in loop operation.These changes were small changes in the MCPR values. includes the chemical, physical. proposed in connection Ch the Cycle 7 Hus. the probability of reaching the mechanical and irradiation properties. refueling outage for Un" safety limit MCPR during operation is indicates that data and experience Basis forproposedno 3 6 cant not increased. No changes in the demonstrate acceptable corrosion bozard consideration determination: previously accepted analytical methods resistance in high temperature water The requested amendment to the Peach used to demonstrate conformance with and steam for hafnium in BWR control Bottom Atomic Power Station. Unit 2. the Technical Specifications and rods. The physical prc,perties expected operating license is being submitted in regulations are involved. nerefore, no to be germane to control applications support of the upcoming Cycle 7 core significant difference in safety to the indicate acceptable performance in the reload.The requested amendment will public is expected from rubstituting the BWR environment. incorporate Technical Specification (TS) barrier cladding fuel for some of the The mechanical evaluation indicates changes as diescussed in the evaluation non-barrier fuel that has been used that the thermal expansion and accompanying the licensee's during previous cycles or from slight'y irradiation growth of hafniuru will not application.The Cycle 7 core design reducing the operating limit MCPR interfere with the velocity limiters. would require the loading of 292 new values. A nuclear evaluation indicates that fuel assemblies, approximately one-third The third proposed change would the IflCR will have no significant impact of the reactor core.The new fuel reflect the use of the hybrid design on core and fuel operation when used as assemblies are similar to the other fuel hafnium control rod assemblies. nese a replacement for the current B.C assemblies in the core except for the assemblies will be used to replace control rod assemblies. Experiments 1 P
h Federal Register / Vol 50. Nr.15 / W;dnesd:y january 23, 1985 / Notices 3853 praide critical benchmarks for relaxation in limiting conditeoas for been proposed in order to maintain the l calculations and illustrate a minimum operation. nerefore. the staff finds that vahdity of the NRC approved SID in: pact on local power and flux operation of the facihty in accordance estributions with all h.fnium rods. An with the abos e proposed change would. analysis.'This change is a part of t reload analysis as discussed above. can smaller impact is espected for not: (1) Invoh e a significant increase in Since the new fuel assemblies are not lilCR w hich is a mixture of hafnium and the probability or consequences of an significantly difTerent from those found B C. Therefore, the filCR can be used accident previously evaluated;(2) create previously acceptable to the NRC for m ehout change in the current rod the possibihty of a new or different kind previous core reloads at this facility. assemb!n s and current design of accident;(3) involve a significant and smce no significant changes have pro < edures. reduction in a margin of safety. been made to the acceptance criteria for Thermal. hydraulic es aluation shows The fourth proposed change would the 'ISs by this change, and since the that the maximum temperature of the delete from the Bases of the Peach analvtical methods used to demonstrate new rods is not significantl> different Bottom Unit 213s reference to a specific conformance with the TSe and frvn the currently used coratrol rod numerical shutdown margm (SDM) regulations are not significantly changed awmblies. prosided by the Standby Liquid Control by this action, and since the NRC has An accident evaluation shows that the System (SLCS) The SLCS capabihty is previously found such methods lilCR uight and envelope are identical prosidied as part of'he standard Peach acceptable. the staff therefore has to the current assembhes. The Bottom Reload Supplement and is determined that the abose fits example metivnical and nuclear properties of routincly reviewed by the NRC staff. (iii)(referenced above) of a change tiot the ll!CR do not differ from the current The licensee states that this proposed likely to involve a significant hazards as>semblies in any measures that might change is it accordance with the NRC cons'ideration. - be signif; cant dunng normal or accident approved reload licensing procedures Sinc'e the amendment involves condit ons. The illCR is, except for (" General Electric Standard Application proposed changes for which no mmor differences. mec hanically for Reactor Fuel". General Electric significant hazards considerations identical to the BWR assemblies for Report NEDE-24011-p-A).The staff had exists, the staff has made a proposed which many reactor years of safe previously approved a similar requested determination that this application for operating experience are available. change as part of the Peach Bottom Unit amendment invoh es no significant Accordingly. the mechanical safety 3 reload. hazards consideration. analysis for the li!CR is enveloped by Based on the above. the staff has LocalPubhc Document Room the mechanical safety analyses for the determined that:(1) The probability of Location: Gos ernment Publication current assemblies. occunence or the consequences of an Section. State bbrary of Pennsylvania. The reactor core response for the accident would not be increased above Education Buildmg. Commonwealth and lilCR design has been evaluisted those previously evaluated because the \\Valnut Streets, llarrisburg. against the current control rod design actual value of the SDM will be Perm 1.an a. for comparison with 1.near heat provided and available for staff review generation mmimum cntical power for each refueling cycle as part of the ratio and maximum average planer m,. supplemental reload licensing Jr.1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW., generation limits.The filCR weight r,nd submittals addressing the 660 parts per \\Yashington' D C. 20006 ~ rod worth are the same as the current million of boron which is cited in the NRC Bmnch Chief. John F. Stolz. rod design, therefore the scram speed Ba ses to the Peach Bottom TSs;(2) the Public Service Electric and Cas and scram reactivity are the same, and possibility of a new or different kind of Company. No. 50-Jff. Salern Nur/ car the abose hmits are not affected by the accident from any accident previously Genemting Stauon. Unit No J. Salem change. evaluated would not result from thia County NewJersey Based on the above, the staff has change because the"IS requirement for determined that:(1) the probability of the SLCS to bring the reactor from full Date of amendment request: March 27 N occurence or the consequences of an power down to a subcritical condition accident would not be increased above would not be changed by this action: Description of amendment request. those analyzed in the Final Safety and (3) the margin of safety provided by The proposed change would revise Analysis Report (FSAR) because the the TSs would not be reduced because appropriate portions of the INDEX. weight and envelope of the HICR are the proposed change in the Bases would DEFINITIONS and ADMINISTRATIVE identical to those of the currently used not change the capability of the SLCS to CONTROLS sections of Appendix A to assemblies, and the nuclear and bring the reactor, at any time in a fule the Technical Specificahons as mechanical properties of the filCR do cycle, from full power and minimum attached to reflect recent revisions to not differ from currently used control rod inventory to a suberitical I 50.72 and the addition of i 50.73 to assemblies in a significant way:(2) the condition with the reactor in the most Title 10 of theCode of Federal possbility of an accident different from reactive xenon free state. Regulations which became effective on those analyzed in the FSAR would not Fmally, the amendment request would Janury 1.1984. result from these changes because.in modify the MAP!)iCR reduction factor Specifically l 50 73 states that:"Ihe ~ addition to the above, these systems for single loop operation (SLO) based requirements contained in this section would not be operated in manner new or upon the safety analyses for single loop replace all existing requirements for different from that desenbed in the opershon provided in the CE Document licensees to report ' Reportable FSAR: and (3 ) the margin of safety NEDO-2423-1. June 1984. The limnsee. Occurrences
- as defined in individual provided by Technical Specifications as part of this reload analysis. checked plant Technical Specific.ations". the would not be reduced because the the MAPLilGR reduction factors for reporting requirements incorporated into proposed change involves no sigoificant SLO because of the introduction of the the " Administrative Controls" section of relaxation of the cnteria used to new barrier claddmg fuel types the Salem technical specifications establish safety limits. no significant discussed above. Based upon this would be changed to reflect the revised relaxation of the bases for limiting review and reanalysis. a shght reportmg requirements: the definilon.
safety system settings, and no signficant modification in raduction factor has " Reportable Occurrence" would I e
v Feder:1 Register / Vol. 50. No.15 / W:dn sdiy. knu ry 23. 1985 / Nolices 3054 replaced b) a new term.
- Reportable requires that all160 tendons be the further inspection requimments of Esent": and. the Indes would be inspected if more than 20 wires in 14 section 4.4.4.1(d) of the *IS does not
.e updated. tendons are found to be broken since the involve a significant increase in the -1 Basis forproposedno sigmficant last surveillance inspection. probability or consequences of an hazards consideration determination: The licensee requested an exception accident previously evaluated. w-The Commission has provided guidance from this requirement for the following SecondStandent: Amendment does 4 concerning the apphcation of the reasons: not create the possibility of a new and o Standards for a No Sigmficant liazards (1) The intitalinspection of tendon no. different accident from any previously determination by providing examples of 75 and the other 11 tendons revealed no evaluated. ne 'IS provide for additional actions not hkely to involve a broken wires prior to the incident. inspections where there is damage to o Significant liazards Consideration in the (2) The cause of the broken wires is tendon wires from unknown causes. ne Federal Register (48 FR 14870). One of attnbutable to the stressing equipment requested one-time exception from the examples (vii) relates to changes failure and not due to an unexplainable additonal inspections where the cause that make a license conTorm to changes loss of tendon integnty. of tendon wire damage is known and in the regulations. where the license (3) Adherence to the techn'ical makes further inspections unnecessary change results in very minor changes to specifications would involve degressing does not create the possibility of a new facihty operations clearly in keepmg the tendon heads prior to conductmg an or different kind of accident from any with the regulations. inspection. The casing filler covenng the accident previously evaluated. Based on the abose, and smce the tendon heads is a stiff, putty.like ThinfStandard: Amendment does r of proposed change insoh es actions that substance making degreasing operations significantly reduce a safety margin.ne conform to the referenced example in 48 a time-consuming orderal. average force of all of the tendons is FR 14870. we have determined that this (4) Subsequent visualinspection of the above the required minimum. Granting app!ication for amendment ins ch es no four adjacent tendons m accordance the requested exception from further Sigmficant flazards Consideration. w!th TS 4 4 4.1(e) revealed no broken inspection will not affect that force or Loco / Pubhc Docun'ent Room wires. otherwise affect tendon integrity and location: Salem Free Library.122 West (5) Subsequent hft-off testing of two of thus will not involve a significant Broadway. Salem. New Jersey 08079. the four adjacent tendons yielded lift off reduction in a margin of safety. Attorneyfor hcensee: Conner and forces of 701 kips and 724 kips. Although Because the standards of to CFR 50.92 Wetterhann. Suite 1050.1747 predicitions are not available for these hve been met, the Commission Pennsylvania Asenue NW., Washington, tendons. the results are within the range d h th D C.20006. of other tendon forces, thus indicating {pp{c'a o'n do s at involve a NRCBronch Chief Steven A. Varga. that no significant change m hit-off force significant hazards consideration. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. C[.utred a c t on g 9 e ,y {9und in the LocalPublic Document Room Docket No. 50-244. R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. Wayne County New York tendon inspection preceding the location: Rochester Pubhc Library,115 accident nor in the inspection of the South Avenue. Rochester. New York Date of amendmehrequest: remaining seven. The strength of the 1N December 1.1983. as supplemented July damaged tendon not withstanding the A ttorney for licensee: fiarry li. Voigt. 31.1984. loss of 24 ofits 90 wires, proved to be Esquire. LeBoeuf. Iemb. Imby and ' Description of amendment request compatible with the other adjacent MacRae.1333 New ifampshire Avenue This amendment would grant a one time tendons. Despite the damage to one NW Suite 1100. Washington. D.C. exception to the requirements of section tendon the calculated average force 20036. 4.4 4.1(d) of the Ginna Technical level of all the the tendons in the NRCEronch Chief: John A. 2..volinski. Specifications (TS). Section 4.4.41(d) containment exceeds the minimum Chd requires that visualinspection of all value required by the TS by 11.2 percent. Sacramnto Municipal Utility District. contamment tendons be done if more The Commission has provided Docket No. 50-312. Rancho Seco than 20 wires (out of the 14 tendons guidance concernmg the application of Nuclear Generating Station. Sacramento selected for inspection) have been standards of no significant hazards County. California , broken since the last inspection. consideration by providmg certam, Basis forproposedno significant examples (April 6.1983. 48 FR 14870). Date of amendment request: May 30. hczards conside:otion determination: These examples are not applicable to 1984. During July 1983, a scheduled the proposed request. Accordingly, the Description of amendment request; containment tendon surveillance was question of no significant hazards This submittal supplements the request undertaken by the hcensee. A total of 18 consideration will be determined solely for amendment dated October 27.1980. tendons were to be visually inspected as by the standards. The basis for which was noticed in the Federal well as undergo stress surveillance.The concluding that the standards are met Register on December 21.1983 (48 FR inspection of the first 12 tendons with respect to a no significant hazards 56509). The submittal provides reve' led no broken wires and no other consideration is presented below. additional information supplementing e anomalies.The hft.off tests showed that first Standard: Amendment does not the information in the October 27,1980. all tendon forces exceeded the TS significantly increase the probabihty or submittal on the additional requirements minimum values. consequences of an accident previously proposed to ensure that proper means Following the testing of the 12th evaluated.The wires were broken as the are available to provide redundant tendon, the test equipment prematurely result of an accident.not through methods of decay heat removal. The disengaged from the tendon head unknown deterioration. Further. the Technical Specification revisions coupbng causing damage to the containment tendons exceeds the application remain unchanged. average force level of all of the proposed in the October 27,1980, components. An inspection conducted after the incident revealed that 24 of the minimum value required by the TS. Basisforproposedno significant
- 90. %-inch diameter steel wires were Adequacy of the tendons has thus been hazards consideration determmotion:
broken. Section 4.4.4.1(d) of the TS verified and a one-time exception from The Commission has p;ooded guidance
l Fedri Regist;r / Vol. 50, No.15 / W:dn:sd;y, l:nurry 23, 1985 / N:tices.. 3055 g concerning the apphcation of the address plant staff overtime.ne
- 2. Revise the setpoints and setpoint standards for a no significant hazards Commission has provided guidance tolerance limits for Units 1 and 2 4KV determination by providing certain concerning the application of standards shutdown board undervoltage relay -
L evnples (48 FR 14870). One of the of no sigmficant hazards consideration timers.ne setpoints and tolerance I cumples (ii) of actions not hkely to dete'rmination by providing certain limits will be resised to reflect values 'I inwhe a significant hazards examples (April 6.1983. 48 FR 14870). achievable with pneumatic relays. consideration relates to changes that One of the examples of actions likely to
- 3. Revise text to more c!carly identify constitute additional restrictions or involve no significant hazards acceptable offsite power source t
controls not presently included in the consideration [ example (ii}] relates to a selections. Technical Specifications. change that constitutes an additional
- 4. Revise text to more clearly identify i
The May 30,1984. submittal provides limitation, restriction, or control not 480VAC switchboard requirements. The additional technical infor nation to presently included in the Technical boards wl!! be identified individually supplement the information in the Specifications: for example, a more rather than generically (i e., change submittal of October 27.1980. The stringent surveillance requirement. "480-V RMOV boards D and E" to 480-supplemental information does not Since staff overtime limits are not V boards 1D and 1E"). This will reduce chang the proposed Technical addressed in the current Technical confusion regarding shared equipment. Specif. cations. Therefore, our presious Specifications. the proposed change falls
- 5. Remove the requirement to record proposed determination that the within the category of example (ii).
weekly the temperature of the cells proposed change does not invohe a Therefore, the staff proposes to adjacent to the pilot cells of the it s!gmficant hazards consideration smce determine that the requested action batteries, diesel generator batteries, and it consists of an additional limitation on would involve a no significant hazards shutdown board batteries, and replace it the operation of the facility not currently consideration determination in that it (1) with a requirement to record the in the Technical Specifications remains does not involve a significant increase temperature of the pilot cells weekly. unchanged. in the probability or consequences of a
- 6. Reword a surs eillance requirement LocalPubhc Document Room previously evaluated accident. (2) does relating to automatic load sequencing to location: Sacramento City County not create the possibility of a new or clanfy that there is no load sequencer.
Library,828 i Street. Sacramento, different kind of accident from an (load sequencing is accomplished by Oadoma. accident previously evaluated, and p) timers and relays ) Kap! n S crame to i n ci al Ntility does not involve a significant reduction Basis forproposedno significant n a ma n sa hazards condemhon deteranodon: District. 6201 S Street. P.O. Box 15830. Loca/ Public Document Room ne Commission has prosided guidance Sacramento. Cahfornia 95813. location: San Clemente Public Library. for the apphcation of criteria for no NRCBranch Chief: John F. Stolz. 242 Avemda Del Mar, San Clemente. significant hazards consideration Southern California Edison Company, California 92672. determination by providmg examples of Docket No. 50-206, San Onofre Nuclear Attorneyforlicensee: Charles R. amendments that are considered not Generating Station. Unit No.1, San Kocher. Assistant GeneralCounsel. likely to invohe significant ha~zards Diego County, California James Beoletto. Esquire. Southern considerations (48 FR 14370). nese Date of amendment request. California Edison Company. Post Office examples include:"(i) A purely November 30,1984. Box 800. Rosemead, California 91770. administrative change to Technical Description of amendment request: NRCBranch Chief: John A.Zwolinski. Specifications: For example. a change to achieve consistency throrghout the This submittalis a revision to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Technical Specifications :orrection of request for amendment dated July 17 Nos. 50-259. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns an err r, or a change m nomenclature. 1964 which was noticed in the monthly Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,2 and 3, N ^ ' ""8* Federal Register notice on August 22. Limestone County, Alabama additional hmitation, resu iction. or 1964 (49 FR 33373). This revision clarifies the luly 17,1984 submittal in Date of amendment request: October control not presently included in the response to the NRC's letter dated 22.1984. Technical Specifications. For example a September 5,1984. Di: amendment Description of amendment request more stringent surveillance requirement. would approve changes to the Technical The amendments would modify the (vi) A change which either may result in Specifications to include the Technical Specifications (TS) to: some increase to the probabihty or requirement to limit the amount of
- 1. Provide Limiting Conditions for consequences of a presiously analyzed osertime worked by plant staff members Operation and Surveillance accident or reduce in some way a safety performing safety related functions.
Requirements as necessary to permit the margin, but where the results of the Basis forproposedno significant 161KV Trinity power transmission line change are clearly within all acceptable hozords consideration determination: and both common station service criteria with respect to the system or Generioletter 82-16 reque i d all transformers to serve as an offsite component specified in the Standard Pressurized Water Power Reactor power source to two operating units. Review Plan (SRP): For example, a Licensees to review their Technical and the 161KV Athens line and one change resulting from the apphcation of Specifications to determine if they were common station service transformer to a small refmement of a previously used consistent with the guidance provided in serve as an offsite power source to one calculational model or design method." the peneric letter. For items where operating unit. subject to the condition Change 1 may result in higher loads utihties identified deviations or the that the 161XV system is not used as a on certain components nf the offsite absence of a specification, they were required offsite power source for more power system and may thus affect the requested to submit an application for a than two operstmg units. A cooling probabihty ofloss of offsite power.This license amendment. In response to that tower transformer could be substituted may in turn affect the probability or request. the licensee for San Onofre 1 for a common station service consequences of a previously analyzed - determined that there are no provisions transformer when no cooling tower accident. However, the Athens and in the Technical Specifications that pumps or fans are running. Trinity 161KV systems each meet the .L
\\ 3056 Federal Register / Vol. 50, N;.15 / W2dnesdry, !=urry 23, 1985 / N:tices' "~ j SRP Chapter &2 acceptance criteria for Description of amendmentregwest this amendment request does not reeuk an offsite power source and would thus ~The purpose of the proposed in a significant hazards ansideration be acceptably reliaMe. The proposed amendment request is to revise Umnse because previously submitted llO's f change is consistent with the acceptance Condition 2.C.(3)ja) of Facihty which have addressed the reqairememes ' a y critena of SRP Chapter 8.2 and is Opersting Ucense NPF-30 to of to CFR 50.49(i) will remain valed f encompassed by example (vi). incorporate a November.30,1985 through November 30,1985. The Change 2 involves more restricthe deadline for the environmental discussions in these llO's ensure that - 1 (conservatne) requirements for certain qualification of all safety-related the plant can be safely operated pendsig' Units 1 and 2 undervoltage relay s, and electrical equipment. Section 50L49(i) of completion of equipment qualification, less restrictise requirements for others. the Commission's Regulations, which in LocoIPublic Document Room ,l r The former are enecmpassed by applicable to the Callaway Plant, does locations: Fulton City Ubrary, Foo esample (ii). For the latter. the revised not appear to require the March 31.1985 Market Street. Pulton. Missouri es251 A setpoints and tolerance limits may result deadline currently in the bcense.The and the Olin ubrary of Washington in some additional delay in protective Callawaylicensee has previously University. Skinker and Un&ll !3 actions. Ilowes er. the revised submitted lustification for Intenm. Boulevards, St. Imis. Missouri,63130. ~ requirements assure that the relay Operation (J10's) mhich have addressed Atrorneyforlicensee: Gerald operating times will be less than the the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49(i) and Chamoff. Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts a ' critical s alues stated in the TS. Rese will rernain valid through November 30-Trowbridge,1800 M Street. NW., changes confurm to the acceptance 1985. The discussions in these llO's Washington, D.C. 20036. criteria of Chapter 8.3.2 of the SRP and ensure that the plant can be safely are therefar encompassed by example operated pending completion of NRC Bmnch Chief: B J. Youngblood_ (si). equipment quahfication. He staff has Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Chrew 3. 4 and 6 neither add. delete concluded that Union Electric Company Corporation, Docket No. StM71, not mc+f) any requirements. The has demonstrated conformance with the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, resised wordmg and nomenclature qualification requirements of to Cm Vernon, Vermont senes only 1o provide clarification of 50.49 (Supplement 3 to Callaway Safety existing requirements. They are Evaluation Report. NUREG-0630 Date ofopp/imtionforomendment-therefore admmistrative changes Section 3.11.5). February 7.1983, as supplemented October 22,1984 and November 6,1984. encompassed by example (i). Precedents have been set regardm.g Change 5 modifies surveillance recently issued operating licenses that Description of amendment request: requirements for batteries and therefore meluded November 30,1985 This submittal supplements the request may possibly increase the probability of qualification deadlines. In particular, for amendment dated February 7,1983 -s loss of DC power.1his may in turn Facdity Operating License NPF-23 for which was noticed in the Federal affect the probabihty or consequences of Byron Station, Umt 1, issued subsequent Register on April 25,1964 (49 R 17876). a previously-analyzed accident. to NPF-25 (Callaway low power his supplements the request for llowever the revised requirements license), has a November 30.1985 amendment dated February 7.1983 woutd be consistent,with NUREG-0123 environmental qualification deadline, it which was noticed in the Faderal the Standard Technical Specifications is noted that the outstanding Register on April 25,1984 (49 FR 178"6). (STS). The STS specify weekly % estinghouse qualification programs This supplemental request for Technical surveillance of the pilot cell onI). Since are genene to Callaway and Byron. Specification (TS) change relates to the the STS serve as the basis for assessmg Basis forpmposedno argnificant operabihty and testing requirements for conformance to the SRP Chapter 16 and hazards considention determination: y PP,_ the change is consistent with the STS. The licensee. in his letter of December De proposed changee were made in Change 5 is encompassed by example 28,1934, stated that the reposed change response to an NRC request to upgrade (vi). does not involve a signi cant increase the testing requirements for all safety-Since the application for amendment in the probability or consequences of an related snubbers to ensure a higher involves proposed changes that are accident or other adverse condition over degree of operability. %e changes encompassed by an example for which previous evaluations; nor create the involve: Clarifying the frequency for no significant hazards consideration possibility of a new or different kind of visualinspection, stating the exists, the staff has made a proposed accident or condition over previous requirements for functional testing of determination that the apphcation evaluations: nor involve a significant snubbers which visually appear involves no significant hazards reduction in a margin of safety. Based looperahle, the m, clusion of a formula for consideration, on the foregoing, the requested the selection of representative sample LocalPublic Document Room amendment does not present a sizes, and the clanfying of the testirig location: Athens Public Library, South significant hazard. The Commission has acceptance criteria. and Forrest. Athens, Alabama 35011. provided guidance conwming the Bosa,sforproposedno sa, m,ficant A ttorneyforlicensee-H.S. Sanger. fr application of the Standarde in 10 CFR hazards considention determination: Esquire General Counsel. Tennessee 50 92 by providmg certain examples (48 The Commission has provided guidance Valley Authority. 400 Commerce FR 14870).%is amendment request is conceming the application of,these Avenue. E 118 33C. Knoxville. similar to the example of an action standards by providing certam Tennessee 37902, involving no significant hazards examples (48 FR 14870). The examples NRCBmnch Chief:Domenic B. consideration which relates to a change of actions invohing no significamt Vassalo. to make the license confarra to hazards considerstions include changes Um..on Electric Company, Docket 50-483, regulations, where the bense that constitute additional limits tions or Callaway Plan, Unit No.1, Callaway amendment results in very mmor restrictions in the Technical County, Missouri changes to facility operations clearly in Specifications. The proposed changes keeping with the regulations. %e staff revise sections of the Technical ' Date of amendment requese-has mede a significant hazards Specifications related to bydraulic. December 28,1964 determination and has concluded that snubbers to clarify requirements and to
i I Feder:I Register / Vol. 50. N:.15 / Wedn:sdry ]:nu ry 23. 1985 / Notices - 3857 = .f' incorporate both operability and testing The time delay associated with the NRC Bmnch Chief. James R. Miller. require r.ents. Since the requested Sostman Rms is approximately equal changes upgrade the requirements for to the combined time delay of the Wisconsin Electric Power ComPanb' ~, hydraulic snubbers the staff proposes to Rosemont Rms plus the two-second Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301. Point . t,: ditermine that the application does not time-delay filter.The filter had always B, a uclear antUn s and 2 insuhe a significant hazards been a part of the original design County. Escons,. consideration, since the change is circuitry but was never analyzed ta similar to the above example, because of the sufficient time delay Date of amendment mquest: LocalPublic Document Room associated with the Sostman RTDs. September 26,1984. /ucation: Brooks Memorial library. 224 Using the filter in conjunction with the Description of amendment equest: k n .htain Street. Brattleboro. Vermont 05301. new Rosemont RE time constant has ne application modifies an earlier Attorneyforlicensee: John A. necessitated that modifications be made amendment request dated March 16. R.tscher. Esquire. Ropes and Gray. 225 to the os erpower and overtemperature 1984. A proposed n2 significant hazards Franklin Street. Boston. Massachusetts delta T equations to reflect the consideration deternination was made a:2to. additional time constants in the by the staff and no: ice was published in the Federal Register on June 20.1984 (49 h NRCBranch Chie# Domenic B. equations.
- Vassallo, l' rom an analytical and electrical FR 25350 at 25381).
point of view. there is negligible his application modifies the previous W_scons,n Electric Power Company. difference between use of a Sostman i application by deleting shock Docket No. 54-266. Point Beach Nuclear RE with no filter or a Rosemont RTD suppressors (snubbers). Table 15.3.13-1. Plant. Unit No.1. Town of Two Creeks, with a two-second filter Indeed, the and references thereto in specifications Manitov.oc County. % :sconsin change to the overtemperature delta T in accordance with NRC Generic Istter Date of amendment mquest; and overower delta T equations 84-13. " Technical Specifica tion for l November 9.1984 as modified requested in this application does no Snubbers". dated May 3.1984. November 14.1984. more than add a mathematical term (1/ Additionally. Specification 15.4.13.2 has Description of amendment mquest. 1 + 1) which was always implicit in the been changed to require the functional The apphcation proposes changes to the equa! ions in the existing Techmcal testing of a representatise sample of Technical Specifications for Point Beach Specifications. but was never explicitly approximately to percent of the safety-stated because, with the Sostman RTDs Unit No.1. Specifically. the related snubbers. This change more overtemperature and overpower delta T incorporating a built.in filter, t was accuratdy reflects the intent of the equations of Technical Specifications equal to 0 and 1/1 + 0 was equal to 1. requirement of functional testing and 15.2.3.1.B(4) and 15.2.3.1.B(5). Further. the licensee a proposed makes the specfication independent of respectively, would be modified to Technical Specifications conform to the the number of safety.related snubbers. specify additional time constraints verp wer and overtemperature delta T utilized in the measured delta T and equati ns f the Standard Technical This specification also incorporates b 'CiIIC"II "*' recent organizational changes for senior E average temperature lag e6mpensations management of Wisconsin Electric l P8 'I '" ' which are part of the instrumentation for plant operating conditions the physical' Power Company. Specifications 15.6 5.1. the overpressure and overpower delta T status of the plant, system response. and " Manager's Supervisory Staff".15 6.5.3. circuitry. .*Off-site Review Committee".15 6.6. po Basisforproposedno significant dn ar t same e thout the " Reportable Occurrence Action", and hazanis consideration determination: requested change. the staff concludes 15.6L " Action to be Taken n,f a Safety The licensee's proposed changes to the that.' Limit is Exceeded. and Figures 15 6.2-1 Technical Specificaticas for the (3) Operation of the facility in and 15.6.2-3 have been changed to overtemperature and overpower delta T accordance with the amendment would reflect the creation of the position of equations are identical to those not significantly increase the probability Vice Chairman of the Board and requested and recently issued for Point or consequences of an accident ehmination of the position of Executive Beach Unit 2. The changes are needed previously evaluated. Vice President. The application also because of the licensee's plans to use (2) Operation of the facility in corrects various typographical and Westinghcuse Optimized Fuel accordance with the amendment would clerical errors in the previous submittal Assembiies during the next Unit I r at create the possibility of a new or and makes minor clanfymg change such refueling outage. Sostman resistance different kind of accident from any as that designation of the Duty and Call temperature detectors (RIDS) previously accident previously evaluated. Superintendent by the Manager shall be installed in Unit 2 and presently (3) Operation of the facility in in writingc installed in Unit 1 are unable to be accordance with the amendment would Rosis forPrDPosedno significant accurately cabbrated in accordance not involve a significant reduction in a hozords consideration determination: with new cabbration procedures margin of safety. The Commission has provided guidance resulting'from the licensee's use of Based on the above. the staff proposes concerning the application of these Westinghouse Optimized Fuel to determine the proposed amendment standards by prosiding certain Assemblies. The licensee determined involses no significant hazards examples (48 FR 14870). One of the that replacing Sostman RTDs with consideration. examples of actions hkely to involve no Rosemont RTDs. which are widely used LocalPublic Document Room significant hazards considerations is a in the industry. would satisfy the location: Joseph P. Mann Public Library, purely administrative chan6e to calibration difficulties. Westinghouse 1516 Sixteenth Street. Two Rivers. technical specifications: For example. a recommended that a two-second time. Wisconsin. change to achieve consistency delay filter be used in conjunction with Attorney forlicensee: Gerald throughout the technical specifications. the Rosemont RTDs to minimize the Charnoff. Esq. Shaw. Pittman. Potts a correction of an error or a change in potential for spurious reactor trips and Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW., nomenclature. The changes in runbacks. Washington. D.C. 20036. organizational titles. ccrrection of t
,j' 3058 Federal Register / Vol. 50. Nr.15 / Wedn;sd;y. I:nu ry 23, 1985 / Notices ' c typographical and clerical errors and notice lists all amendments proposed to specifications make provision foe the a minor clarifying changes are of this type. be issued involving no significant loss of the Unit 2 DC source subsequent - The changes related to safety related hazards consideration. to the loss of Unit 1 DC sourte. no Unit snubbers limiting conditions for For details, see the individual notice 2 Technical Specification changes reflect ; operation and surveillance requirements in the Federal Register on the day and the addition of action statements to follow the staff guidance contained in page c!ted.This notice does not extend instruct the operatoe to transfer toede m. Generic Letter 84-13 dated May 3.1984. the notice period of the original notice. back to the Unit 1 DC source when the The list of safety related snubbers has been deleted from the Technical P >ha e ht Unit 1 DC source is again operable. c.- Provisions have also been made la the.. t et No 7 Susq e a Specifications. De provision that all safety related snubbers shall be subject Steam Dectdc Station (SSES). Unita 1 & Unit 2 technical specifications for the :I to the limiting conditions for operation 2 Luzerne County, Penns>lvania I se of Uut 2 DC source when J, supporting common loada.no changes , and surveillance requirements has been Date ofamendment request proposed allow increased operational. I substituted in its place. The December 6.1984. flexibility in addition to adding a n requirements have not changed other Descnption of amendment request: redundant feature, being the alternative than to change the actual number of ne purpose of the proposed changes to snubbers surveilled per interval to the the SSES Unit 1 and Unit 2 technical means of providing 125-volt DC power ,,ure,, percentage of the overall number of specifications is to avoid a forced safety related snubbers. This would shutdown of Unit 2 during the Unit 1 Date ofpublication ofindividual clarify the need far increasing the refueling outage. Presently. SSES Unit 2 notice in Federal Register: January 7, sueveillar.ce size should the hcensee add currently depends on certain SSES Unit 1985 (50 FR 904) new snubbers to the plant. 1125-volt batteries to support loada Expimtion date ofindiv/duolnotice; Deleting the listing of safety related common to both units. As a result. Unit 1 February 71985 g,c,jfjyj,g,cy,,,,g,,, snubbers from the Technical batteries are listed in Unit 2 Limiting Specifications will not affect the Conditions for Operating (LCOs) on the 8 # operabihty and surveillance DC s3 stem. As the Unit 1 and Unit 2 D tmm requirements of these snubbers.They Techmcal Specifica tions are now Frankhn Street. Wilkes. Barre, will still be required to meet the limiting written whenever the Unit 1125-volt Pennsylvania im conditions for operation of the units. batteries are unavailable Unit 1 and Power Authodty of the State of New Therefore, the changes do not involve a Unit 2 must shutdown after a short time York. Docket No. 50433. James A. significant increase in the probabihty or period if the 125-volt power sources are FitzPatrick Nuclear Powee Plant. consequences of an eccident previously not restored. Osw ego County, New York evaluated. Nor do they create the During the Unit I refueling outage ~ possibility of a new or different kind of (presently scheduled for February 1985) Date of amendment request October accident from any accident presiously the Unit 1 batteries must undergo 1984 as supplemented October 22. evaluated. Bec use t.l! of the limiting battery load prof;!e testing. The battery N conditions for operation and the tests are scheduled to be performed Briefdescnption of amendment. surveillance requirements remain within the first week of the refueling nese revisies wm!d pnmit lugher essentially the same eIcept for minor outage. This battery load profile testmg senings in nonnal full power clarifications, the amendment do not results in the unavailabihty of Unit I background trip level setting for the involve a significant reduction in a 125-volt batteries forcing Unit 2 to main Steam line ILgh Radiation scram marin of safety. Based on the enginal shutdown daring the aforementioned and isolation setpointa to accommodate amendment application involve no testing. The licensee la proposing to a scheduled short-term test. nia test significant hazards considerations. modify the 125-volt DC system in order would esamine the potential of LocoIPubLcDocument Room to provide an alternative means of hydrogen add: tion to the feedwater as a ' location lczeph P.Mann Public Library, supplying common loada. Ria proposal means of mitigating stress corrosion 1516 Sixteenth Street.Two Rivers, includes providing a comanon load
- cracking, Wisconsin.
transfer scheme which will allow Date ofpublication ofindividual Attorney forlicensee-Cerald common loads to be powered from a notice in Federal Registar: December 14. Charncff. Esq.. Shaw. Pittman. Potts a 125-volt DC source on either unit 1984 49 FR 48842. Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW., through the use manual transfer Expimtion date ofindividualnotice: Washington D C. 20030. switches. It shou!d be noted that dunng lanuary 14.1985. NRCBrcnch Chief lames R. Mdler. normal operations of Unit 1 and 2 this LocalPublic Document Room I* PREVIOUSLY PUBLISi!ED NOTICES I ""*'" P"' '8 "E " ""'N 8' ' '"8*
- * *E" OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE Prouss.125-vdt Wwn sarco "kl Mwhi OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING ons have been made m the LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO Sauamento Municipal Utility District.
SIGNIFICANT 11AZARDS proposed techmcal specification. Docket No. 50412. Rancho Seco CO.%iDERATION DETERMINATION changes to provide for implementation Nuclear Generating Station. Sacramento AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING mod ca ons w I prov d t!$e har fware Curity. CaMomia The following notices were previously capability to feed the common loada Date of amendment request: October publi:hed as separate individual from the Unit 1 and Unit 2 DC sources. 16.1984. revised November a.1984. notices.The notice content was the The Unit 1 Technical Specification Briefdescription ofamendment %e same as above. Dey were published as changes reflect the addition of several amendment would revise the Technical individual notices because time did not action statements to instmct the Specifications to allow on a one tirne allow the Commission to wait for this operator to transfer common loads to only baria, the extenaton of the regular monthly notice. They are the Unit 2 DC source upon loss of Unit 1 definition of refueling interval from 18 repeated here because the monthly DC source. Additionally Unit 1 technical months to two months beyond the
mr Federal Regi:ter / Vol. 50. Na.15 / Wednisd:y, Dnuiry 23. 1985 / Notices 3SR u naimum 25% extension for and at the local public document rooms Library. 212 W. Burdeshaw Strael. performance of the refuelingintersal for the particular facilities involved. A Dothan. Alabama 38303. sune&nce test of the Reactor Internal copy of items (2) and (3) may be Wnt Valves ne temporary definition obtained upon request addressed to the Arkansas Power and Udn Company. " ' Docket No.58-313 Arkansas Nuclear of the refuehng inters al for the reactor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. internal Vent % alves will espire on Washington. D C. 20555. Attention: One. Unit No.1. Pope County, Art annam .g Date ofopplicationfor amen lfment- $t n f i skuf
- n8-p cat iv' ire in' Federal Register December m Alabama Power Company. Docket Nos.
OctC15.1ss5. [ t+4 49 FR 49528. 50-348 and 50-364. loseph M. Farley Friefdescriptionofamendment ne Espiration date ofindividual notice: Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, amendment reflects, in the Technical F knuary 22,1985. Ilouston County. Alabama Specifications, the actual number of instruinent channels for the detection of LocalPublic Document Room Date for applicution for amendments: pressurizer level, which will be 1.t c:len: Sacramento City. County ' July B.1984. available following modifications to they. 828 i Street. Sacramento. Briefdescription of amendments: upgrade these instruments during the Cahfonn,a. Technical Specifications are modified to sixth refueling outage. NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF remove the listings of snubbers (Table A% FEND \\fFNT TO FACILITY 3.7-4a) in accordance with Commission Ne ofisance December 20.1984. Err ctive date: December 20.1984. OPER ATING LICENSE direction of Generic Letter 84-13. Other e administrative changes and Amendment No 80. Ui. ring the 30-da) period sim e typographical corrections are also made. Facility Operating License No. DPR-pt.hucation of the last monthiv notice' e ofissuone December 19.1984. 5L Amendment revised the Technical the Commission has issued th'e following Effective date: December 19.1984. Specifications. amendments. The Commission hu Amendment Nos :55 and 46-Date ofinitialnotice in Federal a irrmined for each of these F cilities Operating License Nos. Register: Nos ember 19.1964 (49 FR amendments that the application NFP-2 andNPF4 Amendments revised 45677). com@cs with the standards and the Technical Specifications. %e Commission's related evaluation requirements of the Atomic Energy Act he ofinidalnotice rn Fedwal of the amendment is contained in a of 1934. as amened (the Act). and the Commission's rules and regulations.The Registn August 22,19M (49 FR 33354). Safety Evaluation dated December 20. The Commission s related evaluation 1984. Commission has made appropnate I the amendment is contained in a f nd.ngs as required by the Act and the No significant hazards consideration Commission's rules and regulations in to Safety Esaluation dated December 19. comments received; No. 19 " CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the LocoIPublic Document Room No s gm. ficant hazards consideration location Tomhnson Library. Arkansas i lunse amendment, Notice of Consideration ofIssurance c mments were received Tech Umversity. Russellville. Arkannes LocalPublic Document Room of Amendment to Facility, Operating 72801' License and Proposed No Significant location: George S. Ilouston Memorial .nd Oppertunity for licaring in Dothan. Alabama 36303. Docket No. 50,313. Arkansas Nuclear Hozards Consideration Determination Library. 212 W. Burdeshaw Street. Arkansas Power and IJght Company, One. Unit No.1, Pope County, Arkansas. connection with these actions was Alabama Power Company. Docket Nos. pubbshed in the Federal Register as 50-348 and 50-364. Joseph M. Ferief Date of application for amendment-cated. No request for a hearing or Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos.1 and 2 October 9,1984. ,m n Y11 I uston County. Alabama Brief description of amendment:The n this notice. Unless otherwise indicated the Datefor applicationfor amendermts amendment revises the TSs to allow the Commission has determined that these November 2.1984. ten year hydrostatic test of the amendments satisfy the criteria for Brief description of amendments-secondary system to be performed using cateponcal exclusion in accordance Technical Specifications. Administrative steam m heu of water. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Controls Section 6. is revised to delete Date ofissuance: December 20,1984 to 10 CFR 51.22(b). no environmental "8-hour work day" but to maintain the Effccuve date December 20,1984. impact statement or environmental nominal 40 hour work week. Amendment Not 90. enessment need be pre pared for these Date ofissuance: December 26.1984 Facility Operating License No. DPR-amendments. If the Commission has Effective date: December 26.1984. St Amendment revised the Technical pirpared an environmental assessment Amendment Nos3 56 and 47. Specifications ~ cnder the special circumstances facilities Operating License Nos. Reguter: h(niuolnouce in Fedwat We of prmision in to CFR 51.12(b) and has NFT-2andNPF4 Amendments revised ovember 19.1984 (49 FR made a determination based on that the Technical Specifications. 456act assessment. it is so indicated. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal The Commission's related evaluation For further details with respect to the Register: November 21.19M (49 FR of the amers' ment is contained in a j action see (1) the applications for 45942). amendments. (2) the amendments, and he Commission's related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated December 2a 1984. (31 the Commission's related letters. of the amendment is contained in a Sefoy Evaluations and/or Safety Evaulation dated December 26. No significant hazards consideration comments received. Not Emironmental Assessments as 1984. l indicated. All of these items are No significant hazards consideration Loco / Public Document Room asailable for public inspection at the comments were received. location:Tomlinson Library. Arkansas Commission's Public Document Room. Loco / Public Document Room Tech University. Russellville. Arkansas 17t711 S'reet. NW.. Wa shington. D.C location: George S. Ilouston Memorial 72801. .i L
y n 3060 Feder:I Register / Vol. 50, No.15 / Wedarsd:y, l:nu:ry 23, 1985 / N;lices ~ ~' l Arkansas Power and Ught Company. Arkansas Power and Ught Company, Amendment Nos.:97 and 79. Docket No.5tb313. Arkansas Nuclear Docket Nos. 50-313 and 56-388. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-One, Unit No. l. Pope County, Arkansas Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 and Unit 53 and DPR-&9: Amendments revised Dofe of applicofionfor amendment: y 2, Pope County, Arkansaa the Technical Specifications, September 12.1984. as supplemented Date of application foramendment: Date ofinitialnotice in Federal, November 8,1984. October 31,1980 as supplemented and Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR a Briefdescription of amendment:The sed August 23,1983 and july 11, amendment revises the TSs by providing of the amendments is contained in a * ' Briefdescription of amendment:ne operating requirements, limiting amendments revised the Technical Safety Evaluation dated January 14,.; con itions for operation, and Specifications (TS) to incorporate 1985. } surseillance requirements for the hdrogen/ oxygen concentration No significant hazards consideration upgrades m the Emergency Feedwater limitations and hydrogen / oxygen comments received: No. S3 stem and reflects the deletion of the monitoring require.nents in the ANO 1 & Loco /Public Document Room Steam Lme Break Instrumentation and 2 radioactive waste gas systems. location:Calvert County Library Prince Control System. Date ofissuonce: January 14,1985. Frederick Mar %and. Date ofissuance: December 20.1984. Effective dater lanuary 14,1985. Carolina Power and Ught Company. Effective date: December 20.1984. Amendment Nos.:93 and 61. Docket No. 50-261, II. B. Robinson Amendment No:91. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. l 5t andNPF-6. Amendment revised the Darlington, Soutit Carolina Facility Operating License No. DPR_ St. Amendment revised the Technical Techmcal Specifications. Specifications. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Date of application for omendment-Register August 23,1983. 48 FR 34387; May 7,1984. 6 Date ofinitialnotice m Federal Nos ember 22.1983. 48 FR 52805, and Frief description of amendment:The Register: Nos ember 19.1984 (49 FR September 28,19'84. 49 FR 38393. amendment revises the Appendix A N 6L The Commission's related evaluation Technical Specifications Io add a The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a limiting condition for operation and of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated [anuary 14. basis for backfeeding safety related Safety Evaluation dated December 20-1985. busses through the main and unit 1984-No significant hazards consideration auxiliary transformers. No significant hazards consideration comments received. No Date ofissuancer lanuary 2,1985 comments receis ed. No. LocalPublic Doucment Room Effective date: lanuary 2.1985. LocalPublic Document Room location:Tomlinson Library. Arkansas Amendment No. 88. location:Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech Unisersity, Russellville. Arkansas facility Operating License No. DP/l-Tech University. Russellville. Arkansas 72801. 23: Amendmen' revised the Technical 7280L F SP ifica ns. Baltimore Gas a Electric Company, Arkansas Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318. Calvert Register: August 22,1984 (49 FR 33361), Docket No. 50-313 Arkansas Nuclear Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 The Commission's related evaluation of One, Unit No.1, Pope County, Arkansas and 2, Cats ert County, Maryland the amendment is contained in a Safety Date of application for amendment: Date of application for omendments: Evaluation dated lanuary 2.1985. ? September 26.1984. as supplemented April 9.1984 and June 29.1984. Significant hazards consideration Brief description of amendments: The comments received: No. October 31.1984.
- ' " '" changed the Unit 1 and LocalPublic Document Room Briefdescription of amendment:The Unit 2 Techm. cal Specifications (*Ili) to location:llartsville Memorial Library, amendment revises the TSs to support reflect;(1) A change to the surveillance Home and Fifth Avenues Hartsville.
the operation of ANO-1 at full rated requirements for fire pumps to allow an South Carolina 29535. power during the Cycle 7. alternate test method. (2) correction of a Commonwealth Edison Company, Date ofissuance: December 20.1984. typographical error in a Unit 1 fire pump Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374. La Salle Effective dote: December 20.19&l. surveillance test. (3) clarification and County Station, Units 1 and 2, La Salla Amendment No 92. correction of a typographical error C a nty, m m, m s Focility Operatirg License No. DPR-concerning fire hose atations,(4) St. Amendment revised the Technical clarification of operability requirements Date of application for omrndment: Specifications, for the component cooling water system. These amendments change the La Salle (5) clarification of valve surveillance for Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal comp nent coolmg. service water and Specifications consistent with a design Register: November 19.1984 (49 FR salt water systems, and (6) provisions change m the location of the reactor 45679) .y.hb@im's related evaluation f r backup instrumentation for the water cleanup (RWCU) pumps to a point
- '*"8'"
"
- D ' " ' "' " " "8 I
of the amendment is contained in a flux mstrumentation. temperature water. The Technical Safety Evaluation dated December 20. These changes to the TS are in partial Specifications change eliminates the 1980 response to the applications dated April requirement to specify limits on the No significant hazards consideration 9.1984'and June 29.1984. The remaining ambient and differential temperature comments received: No. Issues addressed in these apphcations measrement in the RWCU pump rooms LocoIPublic Document Room will be addressed in future in Tables 3.3.2-1. 3.3.2-2, 3.3.2-3. and location:Tomlinson Library, Arkansas correspondence. 4.3.2.1-1 because the ambient and Tech Unisersity, Russellville, Arkansas Date ofissuance: January 14.1985. differential temperature tnp setpoints I 72801. Effective date: January 14.1985. for these temperature channels (set at k
- i "N
p v. 5 i Feder:I Regist:r / V:1. 50 NA 15 / W;dnesday. j!nuity 23,1985 /. Notices m b y. te mperatures for equivalent leakogel are 100 Martine Avenue. White Plaina. New Date ofissuance January a.19ss. ury ncar normal operating York,10610. Effective &te lanuary a 19ek m - ~ 4 It myratures. This has caused i.punous Amendment Nar 38 y iMaimn (no leaks presentJ. Because of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Dociet No. 50-247. Indian Point Provisiona/ Operufing Licenae No. the change in the location of these Nuclear Generating Unit No.2, DPR-41 Amendment revised the ( pumps. these temperature channels'and tFerrlogic trip inputs are unnecessary. Westchester County, New York Appendix A Technical Specifications. g. SA ient dn ersity remains to ensure Date of opph.cotion for amendment: Register: August 23,1983 (48 FR 38400) ~ J l Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal thot RWCU leakage in the pump rooms February 14,1983, as supplemented lune and October 24.1984 (49 FR 42818). f. 4 momtored and promptly will be 29.1984. The Commission's related evaluation isol.ted. Bnef description of amendment; ne for the license amendment is contained f Date ofissuonce January 8.1985 amendment to the Technical in a Safety Evaluation dated january 8. Enc tive dote; january 8.1985. Specifications modifies the definition of ggg Amendment Nos 20 and 7. the term " Operable" as it a;3 plies to a No significant hazards consideration i i I~ fiiciaty Operating Licenses No. NPI,- smgle-failure critenon f or safety comments received: No. 11 c..ai A,PR-Is.; Amendment reused the systems. Certam editorial and format Loco / Pablic Document Room ici hr.:ca' Specifications changes were a!so made. location: La Crosse Public Ubrary,800 De < c intiolnotice m Federal The modification to the term operable hf a n Street. La Crosse, Wisconsin Re gister: Nos ember 21.1904 (49 FR was initially prop, sed by a February 14. M601' 4M: 't he CommissiorJs related 1983 hcense amendment application. noluation of the amendments is This def nition of operable alone was Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No. contened in a Safety Evaluation dated not consistent with the required 50-334. Beaser Valley Powee Station. Janar) 8.1985. definition contained in NRC's April 10. Unit No.1. Shippingport, Pennsylvania No significant hazards consideration 1930 generic letter. Ilowes er. Date of applicationfor amendment-romments receis ed: None supplemental modifications contained in July 14.1983 im a: Pubhc Document Roon; a lune 29.1984 hcensee amendment Brief description of amenJment:%e locctmn: Pubhc Library of Illinois Valley application provided a definition - amendment changes the Technical Commum,ty Col!ege. Rural Route No 1. consistent with NRC requirements.The Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit 0;sisb). Illinois 61348 original license amendment application No. I to allow air lock leak tests be Consolidated Edison Company of New dated February 14.1983 was not performed only upon completion of Ycrk, Docket Nos. 50-3 and 50-24f, specifically noticed in the Federal maintenance that could affect the air Register.However acceptable notice lock sealing capability.This amendment Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit was accomplished through noticing of invohes an exemption to Section Nos.1 and 2. Westchester Count). New . York the June 29.1984 application which Ill.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix l of 10 CFR d the Febmary 14 apphcahon Part 50. the exemption was granted on Defe of application for d$endments: PeatedI - November 19,1984. Also, Amendment t Y 5,ptemg,r 29.1983. Date ofissuance: December 26,19M. Nos. 75. 82 and 83 have been issued on Brief description o!omendment: The Etfective dote: December 28,1984. "" U I""" * "'g yI
- amendments resise Fipres 3.1 and 3.2 Amendment No.:91.
of the Indian Point Unit No.1 Technical Focilities Operating License No. 9"**I" fissuance: D te o November 19,1984. . Specifications and Figures 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 DPR-26: Amendment revised the Ell #Cve dote: November 19. t96d. of thc Indian Point Unit No. 2 Technical Technical Specifications. Amendment No.785 Specifications thereby conschdating the Date of mitiolnotice in Federal facility Oper img License No. DPR-fire protection responsibilities of the Register: September 28.1984 (49 FR
- 66. Amendment revised the Techmcal Fire Protection and Safety 383961_
Adm.nstration with those of the Fire The Commission's related evaluation Specifications. and Property Protection Engineer. The of the amendment is contained in a Date ofimrio/ notice in Federal a neadment also changes the number of Safety Evaluation dated December 26. Register: October 26.1983 (48 FR 49585). The Commission a rt!ated evaluation of copws of the monthlv eperatmg report 1984. sent to the Office ofInspection and Significant hazards consideration the amendment is contained in a Safety Enforcement and deletes the comments receis ed: No. Evaluation dated November 19.1984. regmrement to send the report to the Lcoo/ Public Document Room No significant hazards consideration Ofhte of N!anagement Information and location: White Plains Pubhc Library. comments received: None. Control 100 hlartine Avenue. White Plains, New loco / Pubhc Document Room Date ofissuance: January 10.1%5. York 10610. location: B. F. Jones Memonal Ubrary. 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa. E% tice date: January 10.1985. Da.iryland Powa Coopnative. Docket Pennsylvania 15001. An e:;dnant Nos: 33 and 92. 0 Fardities Operotmg License No. eact emo C un y i sin Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No. PR-26: Amendment revised the 50-334, Beaver Valley Power Station. Technical Specifications. Date of applicationfor amendment: Unit No.1. Shippingport, Pennsylvania Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal April 4.1983 and August 23.1964 Register: Apnl 25.1984 (49 FR 17857}. Brief descriptjon of amendment:ne Dute of opphcotion foromendment: The Commission's related evaluation of amendment modifies the Appendix A May 21,1984. the amendment is contained in a Safety Technical Specifications by adding Brief description of amendment %e Esaluation dated January 10.1985. requirements which restrict overtime of amendment changes the Technical Sigmficant hazards consideration certain plant personnel and require Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit comments received: No. reporting of allindicated operations of No.1 to reflect the revised capsule loco!Pubhc Document Room primary system safety valves for removal schedule recommended by location: White Plains Public Library, pressure relief purposes. Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-l h
y ~ 3062 Fed:ral Registir / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wednesdzy Jtnurry 23.198S /.-NoGces 9860. De Bases have also been revised Briefdescription of amendment:He Georgia Power Company. Oglethorpe 4 to reference 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix H amen <! ment changes the Technical Power Corporation. Munlcipal Electric / for capsule removal and evaluation. The Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit Authority of Georgia. City of Dalton. changes would bring the surveillance No.1 to conform with guidance provided GeorE a. Docket No. 50-321. Edwin I. i schedule into conformance with in the Standard Technical Specifications Hatch Nuclear Plant. Unit No.1. Appling' Appendix H," Reactor Vessel Material as fo!!ows:(1)ne requirement to County. Georgia -M Surveillance Program Requirements" of inspect in-containment areas where fire 10 CFR Part 50. detection instruments have become Date of application foramendment: 3-Date ofissuance: November 19,1984. inoperable has been changed from once October 18,1984. supplementing the Effective date: November 19.1984. per hour to once per 8 hours. or to request of September 5.1984. .n Amendment No.:86. monitor containment air temperature at Briefdescription ofamersdment:T$a, facility Operating License No. DPR-selected locations once per hour. (2) The revision 1o the Technical Specifications i 6& Amendment revised the Technical requirement to perform channe! changes the Umiting Conditions for
- Specifications.
functional test on fire detection Operation, the surveillance Date ofinitialnoticein Fedeml instruments not accessible during plant requirements and supporting basis for Register:luly 24.1984 (49 FR 29907).The operation has been changed from once the liigh Pressure Coolant injection Commission's related evaluation of the every 6 months to "during cold Steam Une High Differential Pressure amendment is contained in a Safety shutdown exceeding 24 hours."(3) ne trip function. Evaluation dated Nos ember 19.19% reporting requirement for inoperable fire Date ofissuance: December 27,1984. No significant hazards consideration detection instrument has been changed comments received: None. to cdmply with to CFR 50.72 and 50.73. Effective date: December 27,1984. LocalPublic Document Room Amendment No.:104. Date ofissuance: December 31.1984. location: B. F. lones Memorial Ubrary. gff,cg;y, gage; gecember 33,3ggg, Focility Opemling License No. DPR-663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa.
- 57. Amendment revised the Technical Amendment No:88.
Pennsylvama 15001. F ility Opemting License No. DPR-Specifications. Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No. 66: Amendment revised the Technical Date ofinitia/ noticein Federal 50-334. Beas er Valley Power Station. Specifications. Register: November 21,1984. 49 FR 45951 Unit No.1. Shippingport. Pennsylvania Date ofinitialnoticein Federal The Commission's related evaluation of Date of application for amendment: Register October 24.1984 (49 FR 42818). the amendment is contained in the June 25.1984 The Commission's related evaluation of Safety Evaluation supporting Briefdescription of amendment:The the amendment is containedin a Safety Amendment No.103 dated December 7 amendment changes the Technical Evaluation dated December 31.1984. 1984. Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration No.1 to detach the schedule for the comments received. None. comments received: No. containment Type A leak test from the LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room schedule ofinservice inspection. An location: B. F. Jones Memorial Ubrary. location: Apphng County Public Ubrary, exemption from laCFR Part 50. 663 Franklin Asenue. Aliquippa. 301 City Hall Dnve. Baxley. Georgia. Appendix J. Secti'en Ill.D.1(a). was Pennsylvania 15001. granted on December 5.1984, allowing CPU Nuclear Corporation. Docket No. that this amendment be issued. The new Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No. 50-219.03 ster Creek Nuclear technical specification still requires that 50-334. Beas er ylley Power Station. Generating Station. Ocean County. New Unit No.1 Shippmgport. Pennsylvania Type A leak tests be done at 40 10-g,,,y month intervals even though they no Date of application foramendment-g,,, of,pp ;(,,,,, go,,,,,g,gng, y longer need to be performed in May 21.1984. I"" 8' 19" conjunction with insersice inspection. Briefdescription of amendment:The Date ofissuance: December 31.1984. amendment changes the Technical Briefdescription ofamendment:The Effective date: December 31.1984. Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit amendment to Techmcal Specifications Amendment No:87. No.1 to revise miscellaneous fire makes changes to Section 6.0. facility Opemting License No. DPR-protection specifications and their Administrative Controls.
- 66. Amendment revised the"Iechnical bases.
Date of frsuance: December 27,1984. Specifications. Date ofissuance: January 4,1985. Effective date: December 27,1984. ect e ate anuary Amen men o 8. Re ste u st 2219 (9 33363). AmendmenWo:89. Pmvisional OpemtionalLicense No. The Commission's related esaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety facility Opemting License No. DPR-DPR-16. Amendment revised the
- 66. Amendment revised the Technical Technical Specifications.
Evaluation dated December 31.1984. i No significant hazards consideration Specifications. Date ofiniticinotice in Federal comments received: None. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: November 21.1984 (49 FR LocalPublic Document Room Register: July 24.1984 (49 FR 29908) The 459531. The Commission's related location: B. F. Jones Memorial Ubrary. Commission's related evaluation of the evaluation of this amendmentis 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa. amendment is contained in a Safety contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Pennsylvania 15001. Evaluation dated janaury 4.1985. December 27.1984. No significant hazards consideration Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No. co me ts rece ed o c mments received: No. 50-334. Beaver Valley Power Station. LocalPublic Document Room Unit No.1. Shippingport. Pennsylvania Location: B. F. Jones Memorial Ubrary. LocalPublic Document Room: Ocean Date of application for amendment: 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa. Cmnty Ubrary 101 Washington Street. September 5.19R Pennsylvania 15001. Toms Rner. N,ew Jersey 08753.
7m V.F A Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wednesday January 23, 1985 / Notices 3io83' T '^ GPU Nuclear Corporation. Docket No. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. 1984. july 19.1984 and November 15* 50-:19. 0 ster Creek Nuclear Docket No. 50-309. Maine Yankee 1984. 3 Generating Station. Ocean County, New Atomic Power Station. Uncoln County. Briefdescription of amendment %Is luse) Maine amendment ravises the Technical Dah of opphcotion for amendment: Date of application for amendment: Specification to incorporate the August 4.1983 as supplemented June 19,1984. Radiological Effluent Technical Febru.:ry 8.1984. Briefdescription of amendment
- Re Specifications (RETS) for Cooper g
Fric f description of amendment:The amendment modified the Maine Yankee Nuclear Station. awndment to Technical Specification. Technical Specifications to comply with Date ofissuance: December 24.1984. Section 3.1. raises the high drywell changes to 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2) and (3) Effective dote: July 1.1986, except for } prissure setpoint from 2.0 psig to 2.4 and 10 CFR 50.73. the following sections of the REIS psig. Date ofissuance: December 26,1984. which are effective January 1.1981 DJ.'e ofIssuonce: Januay 11.1985. Effective dote: December 26.1984.
- a. Section 3.21.F.
Amendmeni No.:79.
- b. Section 4.21.F. end Effect5 e date: January 11.1985 Facility Opemting License No. DPR.
- c. Tables 3.21.F.1 and 3.21.F.2 and Amendment No.:79.
M M en nt used be hchnical
- WM M ProvisionalOperating License No.
Specifications. Amendment No.:89. DrR-16. Amendment revised the Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Facility Openting License No. DPR- ' ter: August 22.1984 (49 FR 33353 at en ment revised the Technical in tiolnot ce Federal 333 Register Nos ember 21,1985 (49 FK The Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal 45932). The Commission s related of the amendment is contained in a Register: August 23.1984 48 FR 38404 eta!uation of this amendment is Safety Es aluation dated Deceraber 26. and November 21.1984 49 FR 45956. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 1984. The November 15,1984 submittal did janyary 11.1985. No significant hazards consideration not change the March 7.1984. April 10. No sigmficant hazards consideration comments received: No. 1984. or July 19.1984 submittals. it commer.ts receised: No. LocoIPublic Document Room provided information to justify the localPublic Document Room: Ocean Location: Wiscasset Public Ubrary, effectise dates ol implementation: County Ubrary.101 Washington Street. liigh Street. Wiscasset. Maine. therefore, no additional notice was Toms Rn er. New lersey 08753. Issued. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company' ".*j' lows Electric Ught and Power Company. Docket No. 50-309. Maine Yankee et No.50-331.Duane Arnold Atomic Power Station. Lincoln County, hy f y E 'a ion a ed D c 24. erg 3 Center. Unn Count). Iowa Mame 1980 Date of opp l: cation for oxendment: Date of application for amendment: No significant hazards consideration April 6.1983, as supplemefited July 79. October 7.1982 as supplemented comments received: No. 1983. October 17,1983 and July 25.1984. September 26,1983 and May 22,1984. LocalPublic Document Room C*;ef description of omendmert:This Brief description of amendment:This location: Auburn Public Ubrary.118 amendment revises the Technical amendment modified the Maine Yankee 15th Street. Auburn. Nebraska 68305. Specifications to incorporate ti;e Technical Specifications concerning Nebraska Public Power District. Docket Radiological Effluent Technica, containment integrity, to conform more No. 50-298. Cooper Nuclear Station. Specifications (RETS) for Duane Arnold closely with the Standard Techmcal Nemaha County. Nebraska Energ) Center (DAEC). Spectfications. Date ofissuance: lanuary 14.1985. Date ofissuance: December 26.1984. Date of application for amendment: Effective date; lanuary 1,1986. Effective dote: Within 30 days of the February 29.1984, as supplemented July date ofits issuance. 18.1984 Amendment No.:109. Amendment No: 80. Brief kripyon ohmenknt h Focihty Operating License No. DPR-Focdity Opemting License No. DPR-amendment revises the Technical G Amendment revised the Technical
- 36. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications to (1) incorporate changes
$pect7ications. SP cifications proposed in response to TMI Action Date ofinitialnotice in Federag ate ofinitialnotice in Fedemi Plan Items set forth in NUREG-0737 Register August 23,1983 49 FR 38406 Register: July 20,1983 (48 FR 33076).
- Clarification of TM1 Action Plah and July 24.1984 49 FR 29914.
No ember 22.1983 (48 FR 52804) and Requirements" and requeved by the The July 25.1984 submittal did not August 22,1984 (49 FR 33353 at 33385). staff's Generic Letter 83-36. (2) add four change the July 29.1983. or October 17 The Commission's related evaluation of additional fire detectors located near 1983 submittats; it requested an effective the amendment is contained in a Safety the service water pumps to the list of date of january 1.1986; therefore no Evaluation dated December 26.1984. fire detection instruments in Table 3.14 add:tional notice was issued-No significant hazards consideration and correct the indentification numbers The Commission's related evaluation comments received: No. of two fire detectors listed in that table, of the amendment is contained in a Loco / Public Document Room and (3) tiarif> a setpoint on Table 3.2.B Safety Evaluation dated January 14. location: Wiscasset Public Ubrary, liigh for the Reactor Core Isolation Coohng 1985-Street. Wiscasset. Maine. System. Ne emificant hazards consideration Date ofissuonce: January 3.1985. Nebraska Public Power District. Docket Effective date january 3.1985. commts received: No. N **50~29*' C**P N "'I**' S'*'I*** Amendment No.:90. LeccIPubhc Document Room location: Cedar Rapids Pubhc Ubrary. Nemaha County. Nebraska Facility Opemting License No. DPR-4N Thini Avenue SE., Cedar Rapids. Date of application for omendment:
- 82. Amendment revised the Technical lowa 52401.
March 7.1984 as supplemented April 10. Specifications
,o ?p T 3064 Federal R; gist:r / V 1. So, N:.15 / W:dneadry, January 23, 1985 / Notices = Date ofinitialnotice in Fedem! No significant hazards consideration Locadoa ofLocalPublic FMWh Register:May 23,1984 49 FR 21831 and comments remived; Na Room:Multnomah County Ubrary,act. September 28.1984 49 FR 38402. LocalAsblicDocumentRoom SW.10th Avenue. Purtland, Oregon. y he Commission's related evaluation location: Osterhout Free Library. of the amendment is contained in a Reference Department,71 South M Sch Capg of Cold ~i5 Safety Evaluation dated January 3,1985. Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, ,[3 7 No significant hazards consideration Pennsylvania 18701. comments received: No. CoM i l LocalPublicDocumentRoom Pordand Casnl Datdc CompaEh et I location: Auburn Public Library.118 ,1,goey,gyo,$g.344,y,,;,,y,eg,,, Date ofapplicadonfoSmendmak[ 15th Street. Auburn. Nebraska 68305. Plant. Columbia County, Oregoa September 27,1964. Date of application r amendment: Briefdescription of amendment Pennsylvania Power & Ught Company, January 28,1983 supp emented March Ch'"E" th' fire h '
- tl "'
Docket No. 50-387. Susquehanna Steam numbering sequence as shown in Table L Electri a on, Unit 1 Luzerne County, lescription of amendmentThe r ameadment makes numerous changes to p id a ce Ic qu r Date ofcpplications for amendment: - the Radiological Fffluent Technical identifies the location of the station. December 8,1983 and h!ay 3,1984. Specifications (RETS) to comply with Date ofissuanm: January 3.1985. Briefdescription ofamendment This Appendix 1 of 10 CFR Part 50 developed Effective date: January 3,1985. amendment charges License Condition for the purpose of keeping releases of Amendment No. 46. 2.G. of Facility Operating Ucense No. radioactive materials to unrestricted Facility Opemtiry License No. DPR-E NFP-14 to be consistent with NRC rule areas as low as is reasonably 34: Amendment revised the Technical changes efTecuve January 1.1984. his achievable. Specifications. amendment also incorporates Change S Date ofissuance: December 20,1984-Date ofinitialnotice in Fedemi to the Ph sical Secunty Plan into Effective dote: January 1.1985-Register: November 21,1964 (49 FR 3 License Co idition 2.D. Amendment No.:99 45963) he Commission's related Dc e ofissuance: December 20,1984. Facility Opera License Na NPF-1. evaluation of the amendment in Effective date: December 20,1984. Amendment revise the Technical contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Amendment Na:27. Specifications. -}anuary 3.1985. Facility Opemting License No.14: Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Amendment revised License Condittoas. Register: July 20,1983,(48 FR 33076 at No significant hazonis considention comments received: No. ~ Date ofinitialnoticein Federal 33083) and September 28.1984 (49 FR Register: htay 23.1984 (21833-21834) and 38300 at 38407). The Commission's LocalPublic DocumentRoom September 28,1984 (38406q8407), relate location:Greeley Public Ubra, City ), respectively.The Commission,a related contam,d evaluation of the amendment is Complex Building. Creeley, Co orado. ed in a Safety Evaluation dated evaluaticn of the amendment is December 20.1984. Rochester Cas and Electric Corporation, contained in a Safje Evaluation dated No significant hazards consideration Docket No. 50-244 R. E. Ginna Nudear December 20.1980 comments received: No comments Power Plant, Wapie County, New York No significant hazards consideration received. conurents received: No. Location oflocalPublic Document Date ofopplication for amenddat LocalPublic Document Room Room: Multnomah County Ubrary. 801 A*E"*' 3% 19**- locction: Osterhout Free Library, ' Reference Department,72 South SW 10th Avenue,Pcrtland. Oregon. Briefdescription of amendmentW f amendment modifies the March 14.1983 F anklin Street. Wilkes Barre
- Portland General Electric Company, et Confirmatory Order regarding items set PennsY van la 18701*
al, Docket No. 50-344 Trojan Nuclear forth in NUREG 0737 for which the staff' I Plant, Columbia County, Oregon Penns3 vania Power & Ught Company, requested completion on or after July 1. 1 Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Date of applicationforamendment: 1981.ne schedule for completion of December 28,1983. Item IIIDJA. Control Room,. Electric Station, Unit 2. Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Briefdescription ofon.endment%e Habitability,is changed from July 1964 amendment revises Table 6.2-1, to September 30,1984. Date of applicationsforamendment: " Minimum Shift Crew Composition ~, to Date ofissuar.ce: December 20.1964. May 3.1984. allow the duties of the Shift Technical Effective date: December 20,1984. Briefdescription ofomendment:%is Advisor and licensed Senlor opera ter to Athendment No.:10 amendment changes Ucense Condition be combined. 2.D. of Facility Operating License No. Date ofissuance:1anuary 9,1985. Facility Operating License Na DPR-
- 28. Amendment revised thelicense.
NFP-22 to incorporate Change S to the Effective date: January 9,1tm5. Physical Secunty Plan. Amendment Na:100. g,,,,y,,,,,,y,,,g,,,, y,g,,y Date ofissuance: December 20,1984. Focility Operating License Na NPF-1: Register-Octobn 24.1m (49 W 42% ' gective dater December 20,1984. Amendment revised the Technical ne Commission's related evaluation E Amendment Nat 4 Specifications. of the amendment is contained in a Facility Opemting License No. 22: Date ofinitialnotice in Fedem! Safety Esa1uation dated December 2R Amendment tevised License Conditions. Register: January 26.1984 (49 FR 3351). 1964. Dcte ofinitialnoticein Fedemi ne Commission's related evaluation of No significant hazards considention Register: September 28.1984 (38406-the amewdment la contained in a Safety comments received:No. 38407). He Commission's related Evaluation dated Janeary s,1905. loco /PJblic DocumentRoom evaluation of the amendment is No significant hazards considemtion location Rochester Pubhc Library,155 contained in a Safety Evaluation dated comments received:No coanments South Avenue. Rochester.New York A' December 20,1964. received. 14604. i ,t . - - -. = -
P m p" i g Ted;r-1 Regist;r / Vol. S0. No.1S / W:dnesday. Dnurry 23. 1985 / Notic:s 3065 E ~ r.. . South Carolina Electric & Cas Company. Briefdescription of amendments:%e October 28,1983. November 10.1983. D South Carolina Public Sersice Autherity, amendments change Technical December 6,1983. April 10.1984. May 8s Dock;t No. 56-393. Virgil C. Summer Specification 3.1.3. " Movable Control 1984 and May 18,1984. Nucle:r Station. Unit 1. Fairfield County. Element Assemblies," to (1) require a Briefdescription of amendment:The k South Carolma. reduction in core power after the amendments revise the capacity of the ? Date of applicationfor amendment: detection of a CEA deviation. (2) require Spent Fuel Storage Pool at NA-1&2. M February 22.1984. that the regulating CEA groups be Specifically, the NA-1&2 Technical ~ Brief description of amendment:The limited to the Short Term Steady State Specification 5.6.1 identifies a new i 3 emendment modifies the Technical Insertion Limits when COLSS is out of nominal center-to-center spacing Specification reporting requirements to service, and (3) restrict part length CEA between fuel assemblies of 10 and 9/16 s* ( be in a:ccordance with new regulation 10 positions to the core power dependent inches. In addition, the NA-1&2 TS 5.6.3 l CFR 50.73. insertion limits. is resised to modify the spent fuel o' Dcte ofissuonce: January 2.1985. Date ofissuance: January 9.1985. ttorage capacity to 1737 fuel assemblies. Effective date: January 2.1985. Effective date: January 9.1985. Finally, the amendments revise the NA-Amendment No.: 35. Amendment Nos.: 30 and 19-1&2 TS 5.6.1 and 5 6.3 to be identreal _ Facility Opemting License No. NPF-Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-- with the NRC approved TS 5.6.1 and +
- 12. Amer dment revised the Technical 10 andNPF-25: Amendments revied Specifiestions, the Technical Specifications.
5.6.3 in order to provide consistency between the NA-1&2 TS. Dcte ofimtialnotice in Fe dem! Dates ofinitialnotsces in Federal Date ofissuance: December 21.1984. Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR Register October 24.1984 (49 FR 42831). 33406) The Commissicn's related The Commission's related evaluation of Effective date: December 21.1984. ev luation of the amendment is the amendment is contained in a Safety A*#8d*88#.Nos. 61 and 45. l contained in a Safety Evaluation dated evaluation dated January 9.1985. No facih.ty Opemting License Nos. NPT-lmuary 2.1985. significant hazards consideration 4 andNPF-7. Amendment revised the l No significant hazards consideration comments sere receive. Technical Specifications. comment received: No. LocalPubl c Document Room Date ofinitialnoticein Federal localPublic Document Room Location: San Clemente Ubrary. 242 Register September 22,1982 (47 FR locction: Fairfield County Library. Avenida Del Mar. San Clemente. 41893) The Commission's related Girden and Washington Streets. California. evaluation of the amendment is Winnsboro. South Carolina 29180. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Southern California Edison Company, et July 2.1984 and an Environmental Southern California Edison Company, et al. Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Assessment dated July 2.1984. al Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
- No significant hazards consideration Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
Units 2 and 3. San Diego County, comments received: Yes. Unita 2 and 3. San Diego County, California Califomia (1) Petition to intervene of Louisa Dates of application for amendments: County. Virginia and Board of Dates of applicaiion for amendments: March 2 and April 2.1984. Supervisors of Louisa County, Virginia April 6 and 27. Sepiember 11,1984. Brief description of amendments: The dated October 22.1982. Brief description of amendments: The amendments change Technical (2) Petition to intervene of Concerned amendments change Technical Specifications relating to radiation and Citizens of Louisa County. Virginia Specification 3/4.3.2 concerning control radioactive effluent monitorin8 dated October 211982. room toxic gas isolation system instrumentation. Disposition of above Petitions: '. I I setpoints. Date ofissuance: January 11.1985. Date o[ issuance: January 9.1985. Effecteve date:[anuary 11.1985. (1) By Order dated May 22,1984 the Efective date: January 9.1985. Amendment Nos.:31 and 20. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Amendment Nos.:29 and 18. Facility Operating License Nos. NPT-granted Louisa County's request for facility Operating License Nos. NFF.. 10andNPT-15: Arnendments revised w thdrawal as an intervening party in 20cadNFF-15: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. Case OLA-2 (expansion of the spant the Technical Specifications. Dates ofinitialnotices in Federal fuel storage capacity for North Anna Dates ofinitialnotices in Federal Register: November 21.1984 (49 FR Ms 1 & 2.) Register September 28,1984 (49 FR 45%9). The Commission's related (2) By Memorandum and Order dated 38409).The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is October 15.1984, the Atomic Safety and esalcation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Licensing Board dern,ed Concerned cont:inzd in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11.1985. Citizens of Louisa County's petition for lanu:ry 9.1985. No significant hazards consideration leave to intervene in Case OLA-2. The No significant hazards consideration comments were received. Board order authorized the Director of comm:nts were received. LocalPublic Document Room Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue Lcca/Public Document Room Location: San Clemente Library 242 amendtrents to Facility Operating location: San Clemente Library. 242 Avenida Del Mar. San Clemente. Licenses No. NPF-4 and No. NPF-7 Avenida Del Mar. San Clemente. California. which permit expansion of the spent fuel Cahfo"I'- storage for North Anna Units 1 & 2 from Virginia Electric and Power Company, et 968 to 1737 fuel assemblies. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-338 and 56-339. (3) By Memorandum and Order dated at Docket Nos. 50-361 and SN52. San North Anna PowegStation. Units No.1 November 20,1984, the Atomic Safety Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and 2. Louisa County, Virginia and Licensing Appeal Board ruled that Units 2 and 3. San Diego County. Date of application for amendment: Concerned Citizens of Louisa County's rnia August 20.1982 supplemented by letters appeal from the Licensing Board's Dates of application for amendments: dated October 21,1982. June 16,1983. Memorandum and Order of October 15. I April 10. August 1 and 7.1984. July 25,1983, September 13.1983, 1984 in Case OLA-2 was dismissed. 5 I J L
Fl 3066 Federal Regisler / Vol 50. No.15 / W;dnesd ycJanuary 23,19d5 / Notices I$ iocalPublic DocumertRoom ar locolions: Board of Supersisors Office. localPublic Documatte Roas.o Louisa Count 3 Courthouse. Louisa. location: Unisersity of Wiemnsus. ODiEENO11CG:NOnCEOF d& ISStJANCE OF AMENDMENT - :M Drginia 23043 and the Alderman Ubrary learning Center. 2420 Nimlet PURSUANT TO INITIAL Dsar isann( g - Library. Manuscripts Department. Drive. Cn en Bay. Wisconsin 5430L OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND
- .4 University of Virginia. Charlottesvil
- e.
Wisconsin Public Servia Corporation. UCENSINC BOARD FOR WHKM&ot 1 Virginia 22901, Docket No. 50-305. Kewaunee Nuclear FINAL DETERMINATION OFNO QI' SIGNIFICANTilAZARDS "c Power Plant. Kewaunee County. CONSIDERATION WAS NOT OM 'i Winonsin Electric Power Company. Wisconsin REQUIRED -. 3.y e h a PI nt I n os 1 a d 2, Date ofopp#mtionforanecdmene clear CoWm.e4 M i Town of Two Creeks. Manitowoc July 27. m No. p. nree & Islend Nucreae County, Wisconsin Briefdescription ofamendm w!: Station. Unli No.1. Dauphin County, S Date of apphection ofamendnerrtst Revision of reporting requiresnents to Pennsylveela S. ptember 25.1984. conform with amended NRC Regulations Frief desa ytion of amend:nents:The 10 CFR 50.72 and to CFR 5a73. Date of amendment iMaast May 4 - 19a3. aroendmeMs change the effective date Date ofissuance-laneary 4.1985. Briefdescription ofamendment ibis of presious!3 issued amendments 84 and" Effective date: January 4.1965. amendment permits the return to as to Fadbty Operating Licenses DPR-opuation of b mpaimd am 24 and DPR-27 an indswted below. Facility Operating License No. L1PR-
- ',"& g*,A"R"g* 25. '
O the Date ofissvence December 27.1984. (J: Amersdment revised the Techrucal ,3 Eifecin e date: Upon com'pletion of Specifications. (48 FR 39709) which addressed a portaan eqmprnent installation and testing but Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal d h brems' application of May a, nct later than March 1.1985. Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR 1983.That amendment revised time TSe Amendment Nos ;B7andg2 38414) to retxygnize and approve the steam ferility Operr;?ivg License Nos. DPR-The Commission's related evelaation generator tube kinetac expansion repair .N crd DPR-T. Amendments revised of the amendment is cor. tamed in a technique as an ehernative 30 plugging the effective date of Amendments 64 of defective tubes, only for purposes of ard 68 Safety Evaluation dated Januar) 4.1985. steam generator hat functional testing Date ofinitic/ notice in Federal Significant bazan/s consideration using pump heat (non. nuclear) and Register:Nosember21. ms a9 FR 4%41 comments mceived: None. permitted such testing. Similarly. I d ' 4 *I-LocalPubhc DocumentRem Amendment No.91. issued on Aprile. The Commission's related evaution location Unisersity of Wisccasin. 1984, further modified TS 4.19 to cover of the amendments is contamed in a Library Learning Center 2420 Nicolet the total pniod of pMcayne. S fe!3 Esakation dated December 27 Drive. Creen Bay, Wisconsin 54301. nudead M behal teshg h 1%4-plant. No significanthjzards consideration Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. His amendment completes the comments receidd. No. Docket No. 50-305. Kewsunee Nuclear Commission's action on the May 9 Lorc/P bbc DocumentRun Power Plant Kewaunee County, appbcation by further modifying the 'I3s location. Joseph P. Mann Ubrary.1516 wisconsin to remove restrictions as to theperiod of Sn teenth Street. Two Ris ets. effectiveness of the acceptability of the Wisconsin. Date of applicationfor omendment-kinetic expansion repair process as an ! March 30,1984. alternative to plugging defective tubes in %..inormn Public Service Corporation. Briefdescnption of amendment: the steam generators. thus permitting Docket No. 50-303. Kewaunee Nuclear Licer.see response to NRC Ceneric them to return to operation.ne TSs are Power Plant Kewsunee County, Letter 83-37 wherein we requested further modified to add requ!rements proposed Technical Specifications for regarding the condenser of(gas radiation Date of application for omenderent certain NURFEA737 installed fea tures., monitor. In addition, con.1!! ions have Septe nber 13.1984 Dcte ofissuance:Iannary 9.1965. been added to the hcense to requlte Briefdescr:ption of cmendirent: Effective datt.: Sixty ays fmm date of "'#I d nstrictions, power ascension test De!ctes hst of snubbers from plant W8nce n** 8m'n L Technica! Specificatior.s and includes Amendment No. 59. program resuhs availability, estended inservice inspection, evaluation of other minor snabber retared changes. FCCil/IT O emting License No. DPR-operationalleakage and reporting P Date ofissuance. December 28.1984. G Amendment revised the Technical corrosion lead tests. E#ectis e dote: December 26,1964. Specifications. A:nendment No. 57. Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Amendment and Proposed No Focihty Operating License No. DPR-n Amendment resised the Techrucal Register' May 23,1984 (49 FR 21tGO) The Significant llazards Consideration Specifications. Commission's related esaluation of the Determination and Opportunity for Date o/initiolnotice in Federal amendment is contained in a Salety llearing in connection with this action Register: Novernber 21,1984 (49 FR Evaluation dated January 9.1985. w as published in the Federal Register on May 31,1983 (48 FR 24231). and 45982) The Commission's related Sigmficonthazards considemtion [ canckd June 14. m3 (48 5 273 j esaluation of the amendment is comments receimle None. j contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Loc ?PublicDocumentRoom response to this notice. requests for l Cecember 26,1984. locotton Un}versity of Wisconsin. hearing were filed by TMIA on May 19. l Significant hazards consideration Library Learning Center. 2420 Nicolet 1983. as amended on June 23,1983, and comments receis ed: None. Drive. Green Bay, Wisconsig 54301. . by lie. Molholt, and Aarmodt on June 30. 1983, as amended an July 13,1963. g.2.u n - mw mmmn -- -=xm.
7 P-Federzl Register / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wednesday. january 23.1985/ Notices 3067 j Cem nents were made by six other shorter public comment period (less Practice for Domestic Licensing N persons and the Commonwealth of than 30 days) has been offered and the Proceedings" in 10 CHL Part 2. If a 6 pennu lu nia. State consulted by telephone whenever request for a hearing or petition for { A on haut 25,1983. the Commission possible. leave to intervene la filed by the above ssued a Lfety Fs aloation (NUREG-Under its regulations, the Commission date, the Commission or an Atomic .w; releed to this action and reopened may issue and make an amendment Safety and Licensing Board. designated i me comment period to receise further immediately effective, notwithstanding by the Commission or by the' Chairman - ? ni,!.c comments on the proposed no the pendency before it of a request for a of the Atomic Safety and Licensing e unhant hazards consideration hearing from any person. In advance of Doard Panel, wi!! rule on the request ps%shed on May 31. A " Notice of the holding and completion of any and/or petition and the Secretary or the ir Addmonal Opportunity for Comment" required hearing. wherc it has designated Atomic Safety and Licensing us pubbshed in the Federal Register on determined that no significant hazards Board will issue a notice of hearing or Aw:st 31.1983 (4a FR 39541). consideration is involved. an appropriate order. A Adational comments were filed by the The Commission has spplied the As M 10 CFR W a Cc-monaealth of Pennsylvania, standards of to CR 50.92 and has made petitio for leave to intervene shall set us A heanng was held on July 1&-18. a fmal determination that th9 forth with particularity the interest of 1984.and the Atomic Safety and amendment involves no sigmficant I.iccnsing Board issued its initial hazards consideration.The basis for this the petitioner in the proceeding and how Decmon on October 31.19&t. determination is contained in the that intest may k affecteded by the 16 D3e ofissuance: December 21,1960 documents related to this action. results of the voceeding.He petition ion E%m e date: December 21.19&t. Accordinaly, the amendments have should specir a lly explain the reasons Amendment No.103. been issued and made effective as why intervention should be permitted s Fcahty Operating License No. DPR-indscated. with particular reference to the y A nendment reused the license and Unless otherwise indicated. the following factors:(1) ne nature of the r the Techmcal Specifications. Commission has determined that these petitioner's right under the Act to be z Dcte of mitic/ notice in Federal amendments satisfy the criteria for made a party to the proceeding-(2) the J Registen January 4.1985,50 FR 580. categorical exclusion in accordance nature and extent of the petitioner's NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF with to CFR 51.22. Derefore, pursuant property financial, or other interest in t to CFR 51.22(b). no environmental the proceeding: and (3) the possible AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL impact statement or environmental effect of any order which may be 4 DETERMINATION OF NO assessment need be prepared for these entered in the proceeding on the SIGNIFICANT IIAZARDS amendments. lf the Commission has petitioner's interest. %e petition should CONSIDERTION AND OPPORTUNITY prepared an environmental assessment also identify the specific aspect (s) of the FOR llEARING (EXIGENT OR under the special circumstances subject matter of the proceeding as to EMERGENCY CIRCU$ STANCES) provision in 10 CR 51.12(b) and has which petitioner wishes to interme. made a determination based on that Any person who has filed a petition for During the 30-day period since assessment, it is so indiated. leave to intervene or who has been pubhcation of the last monthly notice. For further details with respect to the admitted as a party may amend the ,7 the Commission has issued the following action see (1) the application for petition without requesting leave of the amendments. The Commission has amendment. (2) the amendment to Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the determmed for each of these Facility Operating License and (3) the first prehearing conference scheduled in smendments that the application for the Commission's related letter Safety the proceeding, but such an amended n amendment comphes with the standards Evaluation and/or Environmental petition must satisfy the specificity and requirements of the Atomic Energy Assessment. as indicated. All of these requirements decribed above. Act of 1954. as amend (the Act). and the items are available for public inspection Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to Commission's rules and regylations. The at the Commission's Public Document the first prehearing conference Commission has mada appropriate Room.171711 Street NW., Washingtion. scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner findsgs as required by the Act and the D.C., and at the local public document shall file a supplement to the petition to Commission s rules and regulations in to room for the particular facility involved. intervene which must include a het of CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the A copy of items (2) and (3) may be hcense amendment. obtamed upon request addressed to the the contentions which are sought to be Because of exigent or emergency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with circumstances associated with the date Washington. D C. 20555, Attention: the amendment was needed. there was Director. Division of Licensing. reas nable specificity. Contentions shall not time the Commission to publish, for The Commission is also offering an be limited to matters with the scope of public comment before issuance. its opportunity for a hearing with respect to the amendment under consideration. A usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of the issuance of the amendments. By petiti ner who fails to file such a hsuance of Amendment and Proposed February 22,1965. licensee may file a supplement which satisfies these No S:gnificant liazards Consideration request for a hearing with respect to requirements with respect to at least one Determination and Opportunity for issuance of the amendment to the contention wdl not be pernutted to Hearing. For exigent circumstances, a subject facility operatinglicense and participate as a party. 1 press release seeking public comment as any person whose interest rney be Rose permitted to intervene become to the proposed no significant hazards affected by this proceeding and who parties to the proceeding. subject to any consideration determination was used, wishes to participate as a party in the limitations in the order granting leave to and the State was consulted by proceeding must file a written petition intervene, and have the wGunity to telephone. In circumstances where for leave to intervene. Requests for a participate fully in the conduct of the fa!!ure to act in a timely was would hearing and petitions for leave to heanng. including the opportunity to hne resulted. for example. In derating intervene shall be filed in accordance present evidence and cross-examine Cr shutdown of a nuclear power plant, a with the Commission's " Rules of witnesses. IL
g v.' 3068 Federal Regi:ter / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wedn'esd y. hnurry 23, 1985 / N tices .Since h Commission has made a final dele nination that the amendment status of the startup feedwater system. being developed to present approaches ins oh es not significant hazards Dateofissuance December 20,19M. that would be acceptable to the NRC-Effective date: December 20.1984. staff forimplementing proposed tonsideration,if a hearing is requested. Amendmerit No.:82. it will not stay the effectiseness of the Facihty Operating License No. NPF,1 amendments to 10 CFR Part 73 (49 IR - amendment. Any hearing held would Amendment revised the Technical 40735)if they are promulgated in their, take place whie the amendment is in Specifications. present form. Emphasis in the guide is effect. Public comments requested as to on minimizing the safeguards impact on A request for a hearing er a petition proposed no significant hazards safety' i-for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. consideration: Yes. by Irgal Ad This draft guide and the associated Nuclear Regulatory Commission. published in the Toledo Blade on value/ impact statement are being issued Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention: December 8.1984, the Fremont. Ohio, to involve the public in the early stages Docketing and Servi e Branch. or may News Messenger on December 13.1984, of the development of a regulatory and in the Port Clinton Ohio. News positir u in this area. They have not be delivered to the nnmission's Public Hemid on December 12.1984. receised complete staff review and do Document Room. 171711 Street NW., Comments received. No. not represent an official NRC staff Washington D.C. by the above date. The Commission's related evaluation Whcre petitions are filed during the last of the amendment, finding of exigent position. ten (10) da)s of the notice period. it is circumstances, and final determination Pubbe comments are being solicited requested that the petitioner promptly so of no significant hazards consideration on both drafts. the guide (including any inform the Commission by a toll free are contained ie a Safety Evaluation implementation schedule) and the draft ttlephone call to Western Union at (800) dated December 20.1984 value/ impact statement. Comments on 325-0000 (in Missouri (800) 342-COO). Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Ihe draft value/ impact statement should i The Western Union operator should be Charnoff, esq, Shaw. Pittman. Potts, and be accompanied by supporting data. sken Datagram Identification Number Trow dridge.1800 M Street NW., Comments on both drafts should be sent 3737 and the followng message Washington. D C. 2003G. to the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. addressed to (Branch Chief): petitioner's leco/Public Document Room Nuclear Regulatory Commission. name and telephone number date location: University of Toledo Library. Washington. DC 20555. Attention: petition was mailed; plant name; and Documents Department. 2801 Bancrof t publication date and page number of Avenue. Toledo. Ohio 43000. Docketing and Senice Branch, by March 7.1985. this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Dated at Bethesda, hfarylana itus 16th day Although a time limit is given for of lanuary 1985. Faecutis e legal Director. U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Commission. % ashington. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-comments on these drafts, comments D C. 20555. and to the attorney for the Donald E sells-and suggestions in connection with (1) Acting chief. opemting Reactors smnch h items for inclusion in guides curmntly being developed or (2) impros ements in nt mely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions. Docmsmed in a n and 811 pubbshed guides are encouraged at t any time. supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained Regulatory guides are available for absent a determination by the inspection at the Commission's Public Co;nmission. the presiding officer or the Draft Regulatory Gukle; issuance and Document Room.171711 Street NW., Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Availability Washington, D.C. Requests for single designated to rule on the petition and/or The Nuclear Regulatory Commission copies of draft guides (which may be request. that the petitioner has made a has issued for public comment a draft of reproduced) or for placement on an substantial showing or good cause for a new guide planned for its Regulatory automatic distribution list for single the granting of a late petition and/or Guide Series together with a draft of the copies of future draft guides in specific request. That determination will be associated value/ impact statement. This divisions should be made in writing to based upon a balancing of the factors series has been developed to describe the U.S. Nuclear Reguyatory specified in to CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-{v) and and make available to the public Commission n,ashington. DC 20555, 2.714(d). methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Attention: Director. Division of The Toledo Edison Company and The implementing specific parts of the Techn, cal Information and Document i Cles eland Electric illuminating Commission's regulations and. in some Control. Telephone requests cannot be Company. Docket No. 50-346. Davis-cases. to delineate techniques used by accommodated. Regulatory guides are Beste Nuclear Power station. Unit No.1, the staff in evaluating specific problems. not copyrighted, and Commission I Ottawa County, Ohio or postulated accidents and to provide approval is not required to reproduce guidance to applicants concerning them. Date ofopplicationfor amendment December 3,1984. certain of the information needed by the staffin its review of applications for is u.s c 552(.}; J Brief description of amendment; This permits and licenses. Deed at R&lk. Ehryland this 15th da) amendment modifies TS Section 1.6. The draft, temporarily identified by it' of January 19as which provides the definition of task number. SC 302-4 (which should be For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. OPERABLE-OPERABilJTY so that mentioned in all correspondence Frank P.Culespie, from the effective date of this concernin.g this draft guide), is entitled Director. Dwi8 ion o/RisA Ano/rs/s and amendment to until Mode 1 is entered " Vital Islands. Protection of Physical D emtens, OfficeofAluc/corRegu/otory P for Cycle 5 only, operability of the Security Equipment, and Key and leck R'8"o'CA auxiliary feedwater system will be Controls" and is intended for Division 5. [nt Doc. 85-1727 Filed 1-22-65. 8 45 arni determined without consideration of the " Materials and Plant Protection."It is amo caos riews-m e I l
mF = i I Federal Register / Vol. 50 No.15 / Wednesday, January 23, 1985 / Notice's 9869 f q Advisory Committee on Reactor Dated-lanuary 16.1985. NRC research programs in the areas of Safegcards; Subcommittee on Watts Morton W. Ilharkia. I MRs and ifTCRs. d Bar; Meeting Assistant Executive Duwrorfoe hoject Regulatory Policies arrd Pmetices. Review February B.1985 Washington.DC.%e The ACRS Subcommittee on Watts [R Doc. 85-1725 Filed 1-22-45. 8 45 am) Subcommittee will review the Bar will hold a meeting on February 13. ouma coes rssedes Comrnission's proposed Backfitting Rule. 1935. Ramada Inn West. 7621, Kingston Watts Bar. February 13.1985. I pae. Knoxville TN. Knoxville. TN. The Subcommittee will The entire meeting will be open to Advisory Committee on Reactor discuss major opertitems prior to fuel . pubhc attendance. Safeguards; Proposed Meetings load and to update the Subcommittee The agenda for subject meeting shall in order to provide advance concerning modifications of the Model be as follows: information regarding proposed public D-3 steam generators, the fire pmtection 8 d $ tion of constructica Wednesday. February 13, 29M30 meetings of the ACRS Subcommittees {d 'd fi c o.m. until the conclusion of business [*f *
- Combined CESSAR 11andReliability
't"'** Er Pmbobilistic Assessment. February 14 The Subcommittee will discuss major published to reflect the current situation. open items prior to fuelload and to taking into account additional meetings and 15.198T.s Ims Angles. CA.ne ydate the Subcommittee concerning which have been scheduled and Subcommittee will continue their review modifications to the Model D-3 steam meetings which have been postponed or of GESSAR 11 for a Final Design generators the fire protection program, cancelled since the last list of proposed Approval apphcable to future plants. and resolution of construction and QA meetings published December 24.1964 The focus of this meetmg will be on seismic nsk. d:ficiencies. (49 FR 49953). Those meetings which are Oral statements may be presented by definitely scheduled have had, or will Nme Mile Point Unit 2. February 20 members of the public with concurrence have, an individual notice published in and 21.1985. Syracuse NY.He of the Subcommittee Chairman: written the Federal Register approximately 15 Subcommittee wtU begin review of the statements will be accepted and made days (or more) prior to the meeting. It is Niagara Mohawk Power Corporatmn,s erating license for asailable to the Committee. Recordings expected that the sessions of the full a pli on a j Commi tee t ng designet en g will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting when a part to the public. ACRS fuU Committee February 21,1985. Washington, DC. The transcnpt is being kept, and questions meetings begin at 8.30 a.m. and Subcommittee will review provisions of 4 may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee meetings usually begin at proposed Rule to revise Appendix K to Subcomm:,ttee. its consultants, and Staff. 8.30 a.m.The time when items hsted on 10 CFR 50.46 and discuss proposed persons desiring to make oral the agenda will be discussed during full Regulatory Guide 1.82.
- Containment statements should notiffthe ACRS staff Committee meetings and when Emergency Sump Performance" member named below as far m advance Subcommittee meetings wiu start will be (tentative).
as practicable so that appropnate published prior to each meeting. Class s Accidents. February 25,1985. - - trrangements can be made-Information as to whether a meeting has Washington. DC. The Subcommittee wdl discuss with the NRC Staff the status of During the initial portion of the been firmly scheduled, canuUed. or the NRC's severe accident codes. m;eting. the Subcommittee, along with rescheduled. or whether changes have any of its consultants who may be been made in the agenda for the Emergency Core Cooling Systems, present, will exchange preliminary February 1985 ACRS full Committee Date to be determined (late February / views regarding matters to be meeting can be obtained by a prepaid early March). Washington, DC. The Subcommittee will continue the review considered during the balance of the telephone call to the Office of the meeting. Executive Director of the Committee of Yankee Atomic's request for an The Subcommittea will then hear (telephone 202/634-3267. ATIN: exemption to Appendix K of toCFR 50 presentations by and hold discussions Ba bara Jo Wh e) between 8:15 a.m. intenance Practices and an 5:00 p.m., s ern ime. with representatives of the NRC Staff. Procedures. M arch 5.1985. Washington. their consultants, and other interested ACRS Subcommittee Meetings DC. The subcommittee will resiew staff persons regarding this resiew. BraidwoodStation january 29,1985. Maintenance Program Plan. Further information regarding topics Washington. DC. The Subcommittee will Safety Philosophy. Technology. and to be discussed. whether the meeting continue to review the Commonwealth Criteria. March 6.1985. Washington. DC. h:s been cancelled or rescheduled, the Edison Company's application for an The Subcorr.mittee will review the status Chairman's ruling on requests for the operating license for Braidwood. of the NRC Staff's evaluation of the trial opportunity to present oral statemer'ts Fire Protection. February 5,1985. use of the Commission's proposed and the time allotted therefor can be Washington, DC. The Su~ bcommittee will Safety Coal Policy. cbtained by a prepaid telephone call to be briefed on the following- (1) The Regulatory Policies and Practices, the cognizant ACRS staff member.Mr. status of Appendix R compliance.(2) March 6.1985, Washington. DC. The Anthony Cappucci (telephone 202/634-Duke and Calvert Chffs compliance with Subcommittee will continue 'he review 3267) between 8.1'i a.m. and 5:00 p.m, Appendix R. p) fire insurara of NRC report on the need for an EST. persons planning to attend this companies' views on fire protection, and "N'ISB-like" board in the NRC. meeting are urged to contact the above (4) the status of fire protection research Class 9 Accidents. March 14.1985. at Sandia. Washington. DC. The Subcommittee will n med individual one or two days Advanced Reactors. February 5.1985. discuss New York power Authority a before the scheduled meeting to be Washington DC.ne Subcommittee will Source Term studies. adv.ised of any changes in schedule, etc., discuss the DOE's redirected programs A TWS. March 15,1985. Wa shington, t hit.h may have occurred. for IAIRs and to review the relevant DC.ne Subcommittee will review the
- l i
x Q v 3070 Federcl Register / Vol. 50. No.15 / Wednesday. january 23, 1965 / Notices G NRC Staffs activities associated with implementation of the ATWS rule. USl A-46. " Seismic Qualification of c: Equipment in Operating Plants." use of the " check. operator" concept ter Heliability.Assumnce. March 19.1985 (tentalis el. Washington. DC. The Seismic Design ofPiping. Date to be licensed nuclear power plant operstges, Subcommittee will resiew co1cerns d hrmined (March, tentative).
- E. Pressurized ThermalShock-,n Discuss comments by NRC Staff arising from a significant failure of an Washington. DC. The Subcommittee will 7,
RCIC steam line isolation valve to o review draft reports issued by the NRC member regarding mgulatory - M requirements to prevent damage to n.4 opainst operating reactor pressure. pen Piping Review Committee on dynamic. reactor pressure vessels from / M. Electrico/Srstems. March 20.1985. loads and load combinations and Washington. DC. The Subcommittee will seismic design requirements of piping. pressurized thermal shock. -4 discuss recent plant esperience with the River BendNuclearPowerPlant
- F.InstituteforNuclearIbwer p loss of AC power and the statas of NRC Units Iand2. April 10.1985, Opemtions-Briefing regarding action on US! A-44. " Station Biackout",
Washington. DC. De Subcommittee will actisities ofINPO in review and .4 and the status of recent NRC actions on continue the review of Gulf States evaluation of nuclear power plant Utilities application for an operating operations and incidents. diesel generator reliability, CombinedEstreme Esternal license for the Ris er Bend Nuclear 'C. Fire Pmtection at Nuclear Phenomena. Structural Ensinering. and Power Plants Units 1 and 2. facilities-Discuss report of NRC Task Dichio Conyon. March 21 and 22.1985. Emergency Core Cooling Systems. Force on implementation of fire los Angles. CA. The Subcommittees will Date to be determined (early springl-protection requirements (to CFR Part tie, discuss the status of the NRC Suff Palo Alto. CA. The Subcommittee will Appendix R) at nuclear power plants. seismic design margins programs and continue the resiew of the joint NRC/
- 11. Anticipated Tmnsients ll'ithout PGAEY plan for a seismic reevaluation B&W Owners Group /EPRI/B&W joint Scram-Briefing and discussion of Diablo Can)on.
IST Program. A visit to the EPRI regarding BNL study of anticipated Schuards andSecuritv March 27 Stanford Research Institute facilities transients without scram with 1985. Albuquerque. NM. The supporting this Program is also planned. consequential failures. /blo PenteNuclearGenemteng .l. DecayIIcot Remoral-Briefing Subcommittee will review design features for protection against sabotage Storion. Date to be determmed. and discussion regarding proposed NRC at commercial nuclear pow er reactors. Maricopa County. AZ.Thr Staff activity regarding resolution of USI esplore the potential consequences of subcommittee will review the final A-45. Dec.ay ifcat Removal. successful sabotage at nonpower reports for various construction .h Waste Afonagement and reactors, and hear how the NRC Staff deficiencies and the results of the Disposal-Report of ACRS resiews and evaluates licensees preoperational testing as requested in subcommittee regarding DOE securitv plans. ACRS letter dated December 15.1981 envircnmental assessments and NRC Comb' ine GESS.4R 11and Reliability F Iraste Afanagement. Date to be evaluation of proposed waste disposal Pmbobilistic Assessment. March 27. 28.determined. Washington. DC. The "Q* and ::9.1985. Albuquerque. NM. The Subcommittee will review DOE's Final gmatic Review ofNuclear Subcommittees will continue their Mission Plan for Civihan Radioactive IbwerPlants-Discuss proposed ACRS resiew of GESSAWII for a Final Design Waste Management Program, comments regarding the scope and Approval applicable to future plants. CombmedReliabihty and timing of systematic reviews of nuclear The principal topics to be discussed are Pmbobilistic Assessment and Afillstone P*"{yjV ""',* plant safeguards and the GESSAR II J Date and location to be determined. n ACRSActivities-DieNuss probabilistic risk assessment. Re Subcommittees wilf review the anticipated ACRS activities and items AirSystems. Date to be detemined p obabilistic risk assessment for proposed for review y Millstone 3' Reactor Opemtions ond l late March). Washington. DC. The ConWtee. Combined
- M. NRCOffice ofResearch Subcommittee will review the NRC's Supplement to the Control Room llumon factors. Date and location to be
/tentofiveFDriefing regarding office II. bitability Working Group Report. determined. De Subcommittees will activities by the Director RES. This Supplement is to discuss the Staffs discuss INPO evaluation of nuclear
- N. NRC PendorInspecuan Pmsmm survey of near term operating license plant operations and incidents /
/tentatirchBriefing by epresentatives and operating reactor control rooms. accidents-briefing by INPO of NRC Staff regarding the NRC vendor Iluman Factors. Date to be representatives. marech n program. determined (late March). Washington. ACRS Full Committee Meetm. March 7-9.1985-Agenda to be DC. The Subcommittee will discuss g announced. NUREC/CR-3737. a method of February 7-9.1985: Items are April 11-13.1985-Agenda to be ascertaining mar.agement/ organization's tentatively scheduled. announced.
- A. BacAfstling ofNuclearPlans-contribution to the safety of operating Review proposed NRC revision to 10 Dated lanuary to.1985.
reactors. CombinedAfetalComponents and CFR Part 50 backfitting requirements-samuell Chilk, Seismic Design ofPiping. Date to be
- B. NRCSafety Research Pmgmm Seerciary of the Commission.
determined (March. tentative). andBudget-ACRS report to the U.S. p g gm ygyg,a og,g Washington. DC. ne Subcommittees Congress regarding the proposed NRC " C" "
- will review the NRC piping Review safety research program and budget for Committee's owall recommendation on FY 1986 and 1987.
piping system concerns.
- C. BmidwoodNuclearPlant Units 1 MMhWW Quahfication Pmgmmfor Safety.
and2-Review request for proposed RelatedEquipment.Date to be operation of this plant. Renewal of Facitity Operating Ucense; determined (March. tentative).
- D. bleeting with NRC
. University of Missourt, Rolla Washington. DC. ne Subcommittee will Commissioners-Discuss ACRS ne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory discuss the NRC Staffs resolution of activities regarding safety related and Commission (the Commission) has regulatory activities including proposed issued Amendment No. 7 to Facility 4 m-n f ____~T~
h I, Rd:ril Register / Vol. So, No.15 / Wednesd;y, knu!ry 23, 1965 / Notices 3071 I Operating I icense No. R-79 for the Dated at Bethesda. htar> land. this 14th day person who so requests will be notified r University of Missouri (the licensee) of January 1985. of any hearing,if ordered, and will which renews the license for operation For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. receive a copy of any notice or order of the training and research reactor Cecil 0. Thomas, issued in this matter. After said date, the located in Rolla. Missouri. The facility is chid Standardization ts Special. Pro /ccts proposal, as filed or as it may be a non-power reactor that has baen Branch Diiision ofLicensmg emended, may be authorized. operating at power levels not in excess [R Doc. 85-17:8 Filed 1-22-85; 8 45 a'm) For the Commission, by the Office of Public. of 200 kilowatts (thermal). The renewed ,w,,a goog 7,m,-as Utahty Regulation. pursuant to delegated Operating License No. R-79 will expire authonty. on November 20.1989. Shirley E. Hollis, The amended license complies with SECURITIES AND EXCHAN?sE. AssistantSecretary. the standards and requirements of the COMMISSION Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended (m Doc. 85-1664 Filed 1-22-as,8.45 em] (the Act). and the Commission's rules IRelease No. 23573; 70-70751 omo caos seio.ewas end regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required Loulslana Power & Ught Co.and i by the Act and the Commissien's rules Middle South Utilities, Inc.; Proposed IRelease No. 23572; 70-70741 and regulations in 10 CFR. Chapter 1. Issuance and Sale of Common Stock f Those findings are set forth in the by Subsidiary and Acquisition Thereof Mississippi Power & Ught Co. and i bcense amendment. Opportunity for by the Hold.ng Company Middle South Utilit!es,inc.; Proposed haring was afforded m the notice of the issuance and Sale of Common Stock januar> 18.1985-by Subsidiary and Acquisition Thereof hiiddle South Utilities. Inc. (" Middle by the Holding Company de 1 R g te on. la 9 13 t 45 F - S uth,) 225 Baronne Street,New 30752. No request for a hearing or l petition ggr ; case to intenene was 7iled Orleans. Louisiana 70112, a registered ') following notice,of the proposed action. holding company, and its electric utility Middle South Utilities, Inc. (" Middle subsidiary company. Imuisiana Power & South). 225 Baronne Street, New Light Company ("LP&L").142 Delaronde Orleans, Louisiana 70112 a registered Sa et I n R port L -1086) for th'c renewal of Facility Operating et. New Neans. Mana m. W4 cvb ad h ehc u% have fit d a proposal with this subsidiary company, Mississippi Power e License No. R-79 and has, based on that Comm,ssion pursuant to sections 6(a). 7 & Light Company ( MP&L ). P.O. Box - report. concluded that the facility can i ' continue to be operated by the licensee 9(a), and 10 of the Public Utility liolding 1640, Jackson, Mississippi 39205, have without endangering the health and Company Act of 1935 ("Act"). filed a proposal with this Commission safety of the ublic~ LP&L proposes to issue and sell from pursuant to sections 6(s) 7,9(a). and 10 The Comm ssion also has prepared an time to time though December 31,1985, of the Public Utility llolding Company Environmental Assess 6ent for the and Middle South proposes to acquire. Act of1935 (_Act ). renewal of Facility Operating License an ai:gregate of not in excess of VP&L proposes to issue and sell from No. R-79 dated November 16.1984 and 15.152.000 additional shares of LP&L's time to time through December 31,1985, has concluded that this action will not authorized but unissued common stock, and Middle South proposes to acquire, - have a significant effect on the quality without nominal or par value. This an aggregate of not in excess of1.305.000 of the human environment. The Notice amount includes 9.092.200 shares additional shares of MP&L's authorized of Findmg of No Significant previously authorized to be issued and but unissued common stock, without EnsironmentalImpact was published in sold in 1984 which were not sold (liCAR nominal or par value. This amount the Federal Register on january 10.1985. No. 23271 (April 4.1984)). The common includes the 1.087,000 shares previously at 50 FR 1285. stock will be sold at $6.00 per share for authorized to be issued and sold in 1984. For further details with respect to this an aggregate cash purchase price of none of which were sold (liCAR No, action, see (1) the application for $100.000.000. IS&L will use the proceeds 23271 (April 4,1984)). The common stock amendrnent dated October 15.1979, as of such sales for the financing in part of will be sold at $23.00 per share for an supplemented. (2) the Finding of No (including the retirement of short. term aggregate cash purchase price of S>gnificant Environmental Impact. [3) indebtedness incurred in financing)its $30.015.000. MP&L will use the proceeds Amendment No. 7 to Operating License construction program (estimated to be of such sales for the payment in part of No. R-79.,(4) the Commission's related $321.100.000 for the calendar year 1985) short. term borrowings, for the financing Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-and for other corporate purposes, in part of its 1985 construction program 1086). and (5) Environmental The proposal and any amendments (estishated to be $41,400.000), and for Assessment.These items are as ailable thereto are available for public other corporate purposes. for public inspection at the inspection through the Commission's The proposal and any amendments Commission's Public Document Room. Office of Public Reference. Interested thereto are available for public 171711 Street. NW., Washington, D.C. persons wishing to comment or request inspection through the Commission's 20555. a hearing should submit their views in Office of Public Reference. Interested Copies of NUREG-1086 may be writing by February 11,1985, to the persons wishing to comment or request purchased by calling (301) 492-9530 or. Secretary, Securities and Exchange a hearing should submit their views in by writing to the Publication Services Commission. Wa shington. D.C. 20549, writing by February 11,1985, to the Section. Division of Technical and sene a copy on the applicants at Secretary, Securities and Exchange Inbrmation and Document Control. U.S. the addresses specified above. Proof of Commission. Washington D.C. 20549. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, service (by affidavit or,in case of an and serve a copy on the applicants at %shington, D C. 20555, or purchased attorney at law, by certificate) should be the addresses specified above. Proof of from the National Technical Information filed with the request. Any request for a service (by affidavit or,in case of an Service, Department of Commerce. 5285 hearing shall identify specifically the attorney at law, by certificate) should be Port Royal Road. Springfield. VA 22161. Issues of fact or law that are disputed. A filed with the request. Any request for a dl}}