ML20196F718

Licensee Response to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene Re License Amends for Pressure/Temp Limits.* Amends Would Modify Tech Specs to Incorporate Revised Pressure/Temp Limit Curves.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20196F718
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/02/1988
From:	Frantz S FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#488-7624 OLA-4, NUDOCS 8812140079
Download: ML20196F718 (19)

Text

1

'f(p & ' ~

. .i j '

.h e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA pa REC -5 N0:33 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

u. a

. . ...viti BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINd, BOARD-In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA - Y COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA " Y

)

(Turkey Point Plant, ) (Pressure / Temperature Amendments)

Units 3 and 4) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR A HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVEliE WITH RESPECT TO LICENSE AMENDMENTS FOR PRESSURE /

TEMPERATURE LIMITS I. Introduction On November 17, 1988, the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. ("Center") and Joette Lorion (collectively l referred to as ("Petitioners")' filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC or Commission") a "Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene" ("Petition").

The Petition pertains to an application filed by the Florida Power & Light Company ("Licensee" or "FPL") for amend-ments to the operating licenses for Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4.

The amendments would authorize modification of the technical specifications to incorporate revised pressure / temperature limit curves applicable up to 20 effective full power years ("EFPY") of service life. On October 19, 1988, the Commission published a notice in the Federal RegiC;er stating that it is considering 0812140079 0H1000 PDR ADOCK 05000250 C PDH DSo3

issuance of the license amendmento and that it has made a proposed determination that the anendments "do not involve a significant hazard consideration." 53 Fed. Reg. 40981, 40988 (1988). The notice invited commento on the proposed determina-tion. It also offered an opportunity to intervene to persons whose interest may be affected by the proceeding. 53 Fed. Reg.

at 40981.

The Licensee hereby submits its response to the Petition.

II. Descriotion of the Amendments The proposed amendments would revise section 3.1.2 of the technical specifications contained in the dperating licenses for Turkey Point by incorporating new pressure / temperature limits for the reactor coolant system. These pressure / temperature limits are in the form of parametric curves which define the permissible operating envelope *during reactor heatup, cooldown, criticality and in service leak and hydrostatic testing.

The pressure / temperature limits are based partly on the

(

most limiting nil-ductility temperature for the reactor vessel.

f It is, therefore, necessary to periodically revise the pressure /

l temperature limits to account for the effects of irradiation and f

other factors on the nil-ductility temperature. The current f

pressure / temperature limits in effect at Turkey Point are applic-l l

l

O able up to 10 EFPY. The proposed amendments will replace the current pressure / temperature limits with revised curves applicable up to 20 EFPY. 1/ l III. Standina of the Petitioners ,

The Licensee will not be contesting the standing of the  ;

Petitioners to intervene in this proceeding.

IV. The Petitioners' Issues A. Introduction ,

10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(2) states that a petition to intervene shall set forth the "specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(3), a petitioner  !

may amend his petition at any time up to fifteen days prior to i

the holding of a special prehearing conference. Additionally, 10 l C.F.R. S 2.714(b) states that, ,not later than fifteen days prior to the special prehearing conference, the petitioner shall file a -

list of contentions.

t Paragraph 6 of the Petition identifies the "issues" l

! that Petitioners desire to address in this proceeding. The ,

Petitlen is unclear whether the Petitioners intend these l' sues s ,

1 l

to be "aspects" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(c)(?) or conten-tions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b). For the nake of this {

! Response, the Licensee assumes that the Petitioners are offering l i

l l

! i 1/ Egg 53 Fed. Reg. at 40988.

h I

+

_4_

contentions, and the Licensee sets forth its objections to these contentions. This Response also addresses whether these issues are objectionable as "aspects."

B. Standards Governing Admissibility of Contentions __

A petition to intervene will be denied under 2.714(b) if the petitioner fails to state at least one contention within

! the scope of the hearing. For a proposed contention to be admissible, the basis for each contention must be set forth with 4

, reasonable specificity. Philadelohia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-85-15, 22 NRC 184, 187 l (1985). 2/

The petition need not detail the evidence which will be offered to support the contentions. Houston Lichtiba and Power C2A (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 547-49 (1980); Mississicoi Power and Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). However, a proposed contention must be presented with suf ficient specificity and basi s to put the parties on suf ficient notice as "what they will have to d6 tend against or oppose."

Philadelchia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, e

i Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974). Egg also Texas i Utilitiew Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-868, 25 NRC 912, 930 (1987); riorida Power & Licht Co. (St.

1 Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-893, 27 NRC 627, 630 1 2/ This requirement has also been upheld in court. Egg EPI v. ,

i

&EC, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

j i

i i

(1988). Thus, a proposed contention is not admissible if it contains only "vague generalized assertions, drawn without any particularized reference to the details of the challenge 6 i 4

facility," Philadelohia Electric Co. (Peach Bottet' Atomic Power f S ta t ioit , Units 2 and 3), CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173, 174 (1973), or if it does not "seek resolution Of concrete issues," Peach af2t125, supra, ALAB-215, 8 AEC at 21. In order to satir:c the "bcsis" and "specificity" requirement, a petitioner can or merely allege f that a specific portion of the licensee's analysis is incorrect, 1

i but also must specify the basis for the allegation that the analysis is incorrect. Pacific Gas & tiectric Cot (Diablo C0nyon

! Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAR-728, 17 NRC '<77, 801-02 i n.73 (1983). The basis must provide "a clear articulation of the theory of the contention," Commonwealth Eoison Co. (Quad Cities [

Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-33, 14 NRC 012, 916 (1981), and Public Service state the "reasons" for the hetitioner's concern.  :

Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 106, 16 NRC 1649, 1654 (1982). With respect to a safety conten-  !

l I tion the petitioner must "either allege with particularity that

' an applicant is not complying with a specified regulation, or

)

i allege with particularity the existence and detail of a sub-

! stantial safety issue on which the regolations are silent."

Thus, the bare Seabrook, supra, LBP-82-106, 16 NRC at 1656.

t allogation that a particular facility or procedura is "unsafe" will not meet the particularity standard. Finalte, it should be noted that a licensing board is under no obligation, "to recast l

\ .

contentions offered by one of the litigants for the purpose of making those contentions acceptable." Commonwealth Edison Co.

(Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974).

As demonstrated below, the Petition does not meet the requirements for an admissible contention.

C. Evaluation of Petitioners' Issues 1/

4 Issue 6fa)

Issue 6(a) states as follows:

$ Thattheproposedlicenseamendmentsjgvolve a significant hazards consideration. _/

i i

2/ The number of each issue discussed below corresponds to the numbered paragraph in the Petition that identifies the

1. ssue.

A/ Paragraph 5 of the Petition also statest

If the Commission issued an order allowing issuance of the prop'osed license amendments l

in the manner sought by the Licensee, Florida Power & Light Company, operation of the Turkey Point nuclear power plants nos. 3 and 4 would:

I a) involve a significant increase in the probability and consequences of a serious nuclear accident;

.i I b) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;

! c) involve a significant reduction in i the margin of safety.

The three factors identified in Paragraph 5 are essentially the same factors that the Comtaission has listed in 10 C.F.R.

S 50.92(c) for determining whether an amendment involves a significant hazards consideration. Thus, Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 6(a) of the Petition address the same issue.

l l

i E .

This issue should be resected as either an "aspect" or a contention because it addresses a matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board. The Commission has dele-gated the responsibility for determining whether an amendment involves a significant hazards consideration to the NRC Staff.

Under 10 C.F.R. S 50.58(b)(6), the NRC Staff's determination may not be challenged in a hearing before a Licensing Board.

Specifically, this section statos that:

No petition or other tequest for review of or hearing on the staff's significant hazards consideration determination will be enter-tained by the Commission. The staff's deter-1 mination is final, subject only to the Commission's discretion, on its own initia-tive, to review the determination.

Therefore, to the extent the Petition seeks to challenge the NRC Staff's "no significant hazards consideration" determination, the issue is beyond the jur13 diction of the Licensing Board and should be rejected. Egg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-87-17, 25 NRC 838,

! 844 (1987). 5/ In fact, the Petitioners have raised essentially the same issue in previous proceedings, and in each case the i issue was rejected by the presiding licensing botrd. Egg, tz2Ae Florida _'/ower & Licht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generation, Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-85-36, 22 NRC 590, 596 (1985).

l i

, S/ Egg glas Florida Power & Licht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-88-10A 27 NRC 452, 456-57 (1988)

(stating that the licensing board is barred as a matter of i Commission regulation from acting on or granting relief on a contention challenging the Staff's no significant hazards consideration determination).

4 4

4

Issue 6fb)

Issue 6(b) states as follows:

That the use of Unit 3 data to predict Pressure / Temperature curves for Unit 4 is scientifically invalid and wot bl increase the possibility of a major nuclear accident (including pressure vessel rupture and resulting meltdown) of occurring at Turkey Point Unit 4, and that use of data from the integrated surveillance program to determine the level of embrittlement and to set P/T limits is not scientific, not conservative and increases the probability of an accident.

The Licensee has no objection to this issue if it is construed as the identification of an "aspect" which Petitioners desire to litigate. However, if the Petitioners are proffering this issue as a contention, the 1:: sue lacks specificity and basis and should be rejected. In partiealar, the Petitioners have not specified the basis for their assortion that t'.vs use of inte-grated surveillance data from Ture.ey Point Units 3 and 4 is not a scientifically valid or a conservitive means of determining the pressure / temperature curve for bo'h units'.

Issue 6fel Issue 6(c) states as fol'ows:

That substantial i n --tr'.nties in some estimates and ca' ulations of the effects of irradiation and nil-ductility temperature for Unit 3 would mean that the P/T limits derived from this data are not conservative and by underestimating the damage to the pressure vessel welds would increase the prnbability and consequences of . major nuclear accident (caused by pressurized thermal shock and pressure vessel rupture) of occurring at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.

The Licensee has no objection to this issue if it is construed as the identification of an "aspect" which Petitioners desire to litigate. However, if the Petitioners are proffering this issue as a contention, the issue lacks specificity and basis and should be rejected. In particular, the Petitioners have not specified the "substantial uncertainties" to which they are referring, nor have they provided any basis for their contention that these uncertainties render the pressure / temperature limits unconservative. In this regard, it should be noted that the Licensee prepared the pressure / temperature curves using the pro-visions of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Rev. 2. 1/ The calcula-tions in this Regulatory Guide include a margin "to obtain con-servative, upper-bound values of adjusted reference tempera-ture." 1/ The Petitioners have not provided any basis for questioning the means by which Regulatory Guide 1.99 accounts for

uncertainties. .

Issue 6fd)

Issue 6(d) states as follows:

That revised P/T limits will cause the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G not to be satisfied because it will cause a j

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

5/ Egg 53 Fed. Reg. at 40988.

! 7/ NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials" (May 1988), p.

l 1.99-3.

I

10 This issue should be rejected as either an "aspect" or a contention because it fails to identify the subject matter that

' the Petitioners desire to litigate. In particular, the Petitioners have not identified "the margin of safety" to which 4

they have referred, nor have they provided any basis for the claim that the Licensee's proposed pressure / temperature curves would affect this margin. Furthermore, the Petitioners have not identified thu specific requirements in Appendix G that allegedly would not be satisfied, nor have they provided any basis for their assertion that the pressure / temperature curve would not satisfy Appendix G. In short, Issue 6(d) consists of nothing more than a generalized conclusion that the Licensee's proposed amendment does not comply with regulatory requirements, without identifying the specific subject matter the Petitioners desire to litigate or providing a basis for Petitioners' conclusion.

Issue 6fel ,

Issue 6(e) states as follows:

That due to the fact that Turkey Point Unit 3 t and 4 have the second and third most 4

4 embrittled reactor vessel welds in the United States, and due to the fact that these units  ;

are extremely close to the screening cri- l terion established by the NRC it is unwise and not conservative to allow these P/T limits to be set for a 10 year period.

i I

.'his issue should be rejected as either an "aspect" or i a cvntention, because the issue does not identify any litigable i

i l matter. Petitioner ' claims that "Turkey Point Unit 3 and 4 have i the second and third most embrittled reactor vessel welds in the t

1

- 11 _

United States" and that "these units are extremely close to the

' screening criterion established by the NRC" S/ do not provide an adequate basis for concluding that the Licensee has improperly I calculated the pressure / temperature curve for the period between 10 and 20 EPPY. In particular, neither the alleged status of the Turkey Point reactor vessel welds relative to other plants nor the allegation that Turkey Point comes "close" to (but does not exceed) the commission's screening criterion identifies anything inconsistent with applicable regulatory requirements or any deficiency in the pressure / temperature curve for periods up to 20 EFPY. Furthermore, these allegations have no logical connection with Petitioners' assertion that a ten-year effective period for the pressure / temperature curve is "unwise and not conservative." t Therefore, this issue offers nothing to litigate.

l

\

l i i l i '

I I

i t

b l

l l

I I

1/ Presumably, the Petitioners are referring to the screening .

criteria in 10 C.F.R. 550.61 pertaining to pressurized 6

l thermal shock.

-(

V. Conclusion The Licensee will not be contesting the standing of the Petitioners to intervene in this proceeding. However, the Petitioners have not proferred an admissible contention in their .

Petition. Consequently, the Petition does not provide a sufficient basis for allowing Petitioners to participate as a party to this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, JT% CW( t Harold F. Reis &

Steven P. Frantz Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. ,

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000  ;

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-6600 J Co-Counsel for Florida Power &

. Light Company c

Co-Counsel: .

i I

John T. Butler k Steel, Hector & Davis i

4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131 l (305) 577-2800 i December 2, 1988 I

i I

I 1

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSi'ON BEFORE TH2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA

)

(Turkey Point Plant, ) (Pressure / Temperature Amendments)

Units 3 and 4) )

HQTJCE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Notice is hereby given that Harold F. Reis enters an appearance as counsel for Florida Power & Light Company in the above-captioned proceeding.

Name: Harold F. Reis Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone (202) 955-6600 Admissions: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Name of Party: Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408

, (b l b (A Harold F. F,eis Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date December 2, 1988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA

)

(Turkey Point Plant, ) (Pressure / Temperature Amendments)

Units 3 and 4) )

NOTICE CF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Notice is hereby given that Steven P. Frantz enters an appearance as counsel for Florida Power & Light Company in the above-captioned proceeding.

Name: Steven P. Frantz Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-6600 Admissions: United States Court of Appeals for the L! strict of Columbia Circuit Name of Party: Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408

./44 Y /

Steven P. Frantz Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: December 2, 1988

'O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA

) 50-251 OLA

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) ) (Pressure Temperature

) Amendments)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL FOR FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY The undersigned firm appears as co-counsel for Florida Power & Light Company and requests that all parties add this firm to their respective service lists and provide this firm with copies of all papers hereinafter served.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by mail tot Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Att: Chief, Docketing and Service Section (Original plus two copies)

Janice Moore, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

0 0

Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Road #217 Miami, FL 33143 Steven P. Frantz, Esq.

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Dated this / day of December, 1988.

MM J o,4f1 T. Butler Steel Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2398 Telephone: (305) 577-2939 Co-counsel for Florida Power &

Light Company 9

c iii:>

.>,..t UNITED STATES OF AMDUCADEC -5 f40:32 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETREATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOhhD :n In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA

) 50-251 OLA COMPANY

)

(Turkey Point Plant, ) (Pressure / Temperature Amendments)

Units 3 and 4) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Licensee's Response to Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene with Respect to License Amendments for Pressure / Temperature Limits" in the above captioned proceeding, together tbtee' notices of appear-ance of counsel, were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below.

B. Paul Cotter, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commfssion Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 7erry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 r

l

Office of Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section (Original plus two copies)

Joette Lorion, Director Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Road #217 Miami, Florida 33143 Janice Moore office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John T. Butler Steel, Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131 Dated this 2nd day of December 1988 7'

b& f Ylg

. Steven P. Frantz /

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 .

Washington, D.C. 20036