ML20203P047

Response Advising That Petitioners Adequately Demonstrated Standing to Intervene,Proffered at Least One Admissible Contention & Should Be Admitted as Parties to Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20203P047
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	10/10/1986
From:	Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1093 OLA, NUDOCS 8610200210
Download: ML20203P047 (24)

Text

t

/Ob October 10, 1986 DOLMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~86 E 15 PI :10 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BkhhykjjM BRAtic9 In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-133 OLA COMPANY )

) (Decommissioning)

(Humboldt Bay Power Plant )

Unit No. 3) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE.TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING AND AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

'I. INTRODUCTION Pacific Gas and Electric Company is licensed to possess but not op-crate Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, a 65-MWe boiling water re-l actor located in the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, California. On 4

July 3, 1986, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.104, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of the issuance of an amendment to the facility license and offered the opportunity for hearing on the amendment. 51 Fed. Reg. 24458. M 1_/ The amendment is related to decommissioning the facility and specifi-cally would: 1) delete license conditions related to seismic investi-gation, analysis and modification; 2) approve the licensee's

< decommissioning plan for 30 years of onsite storage of residual radio-l activity (SAFSTOR); 3) revise the technical specifications to reflect j the permanent shutdown and " possess-but-not-operate" status of the i

facility and to reflect the SAFSTOR status; and 4) extend the term i of License No. DPR-7 for an additional 15 years from November 9, l 2000 to November 9, 2015 to be consistent with the 30 year safe storage plan.

0610200210 861010 PDR O ADOCK 05000133 PDR

.i Pursuant to that notice , the Redwood Alliance, an unincorporated.

organization, Wesley Chesbro, an elected member of the liumboldt County Board of Supervisors, Douglas H. Bosco, a United States Congressman representing California's First Congressional District, Barry Keene, and member of the California Legislature representing California's Second Sen-ate District, and Daniel E. Hauser, a California State Assemblyman repre-senting the Second Assembly District (Petitioners), filed, on August 2, 1986, a timely joint request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (Petition) .

In accordance with an August 26,1986 " Notice of Prehearing Confer-ence," issued by the Licensing Board, Petitioners filed a supplement to their intervention petition on September 17, 1986. Supplement to the Petition to Intervene in License Amendment Proceedings, Request For Hearing, And Request For Further Relief (Supplemental Petition). In addition, on September 26, 1986, Petitioners filed their " Amended Petition to Intervene in License Amendment Proceeding, Request for Hearing and Request for Further Relief" (Amended Petition). The Amended Petition is a revised version of the original petition. The Amended Petition contains additional information on the standing and interest of some of the peti-tioners and includes a list of contentions identical to that contained in the Supplemental Petition filed September 17, 1986.

For the reasons set forth below, the Staff is of the view that Peti-tioners have adequately demonstrated their standing to intervene, have proffered at least one admissible contention pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714, and should be admitted as parties to the proceeding.

- - - , - - - - - - - - -- , , . , , ., n. - - --__.--,,,-.-v - - - - ,

O .

, II. DISCUSSION A. Interest and Standing

~

In its response to the original petition to intervene, the Staff noted that the Petition did not contain a sufficient showing of standing and in-terest with respect to Petitioners Redwood Alliance, Congressman Bosco, State Senator Keene and Supervisor Chesbro. Staff Response to Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene Regarding Amendment to Decommission Facility (Staff Response), August 22, 1986, at 7-16.

The Redwood Alliance's showing of derivative standing was deficient because it had not identified at least one member by name and address who resides within the geographical proximity of the plant and had au-thorized the filing of the petition. Staff Response at 7-8. The amended petition states that two members of the Redwood - Alliance, Ralph and Nona Kraus, live within 5 miles of the plant and have expressly author-ized the Redwood Alliance to represent their interests in this proceeding.

Amended Petition at 4. Because these members are identified by name and address and their affidavits, which are appended to the Amended Pctition, indicate they have authorized the Redwood Alliance to represent their interests, the Staff is of the view that the Redwood Alliance has sufficiently demonstrated its standing to intervene through the interest of a member. -

-2/ In the Amended Petition it is alleged with respect to the named Red-wood Alliance members and the other Petitioners that the extension of the Humboldt Bay license for another 15 years could cause physi-cal or psychological injury. See, go.., Amended Petition at 4.

However, the Commission has stated that psychological health is not (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

N

In the case of Supervisor Chesbro, the Staff observed that while it could be inferred that Supervisor Chesbro contended that he could be injured by the issuance of the amendment, the Petition should be amended to assert such potential injury to perfect his claim of standing. Staff Response at 8-9. Because the Amended Petition (et 8) states that Supervisor Chesbro's physical health may be injured by long term storage of spent fuel at the site, his claim of standing to intervene on his own behalf has been sufficiently demonstrated. 3,/

As regards Congressman Bosco, the Staff noted that while the Staff is aware he maintains a District office in Eureka, there was no statement that the Congressman would or might be injured by one or more of the possible outcomes of the proceeding. Staff Response at 10-11. The Amended Petition (at 9-10) states that Congressman Bosco is concerned that his physical health "may be injured by the long term storage of spent fuel." Since it is alleged that Congressman Bosco may be injured by one of the possible outcome of the proceeding, the Staff is of the view that he has sufficiently demonstrated his standing to intervene on his on behalf.

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) cognizable under the Atomic Energy Act. Metropolitan Edison Co.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-82-6, 15 NRC 407 (1982). This view has been upheld in federal court. People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC, 678 F. 2d 222, 249-53 (D.C. Cir. 1982),

rev'd, 460 U S. 766 (1983).

-3/ The Amended Petition states , as did the original petition , that Supervisor Chesbro and the other elected officials represent the interest of their constituents. The Staff maintains its position that (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

1 l

l

. 1 With respect to State . Senator Keene's claim of standing, the Staff a f

, obs.erved that the original p.etition did not state that he had some person-al stake in the outcome and did not provide information about his personal -

or business address so that the geographical proximity test could be applied. Staff Response at 11-12. Because the Amended Petition (at 12) i states that he maintains an office within ten miles of the facility and that his physical health may be injured by long term storage , the Staff believes he has sufficiently demonstrated standing to intervene on his own behalf.

In sum, the Amended Petition cures the deficiencies as to the show-ing of standing of the above-mentioned Petitioners. Consequently, all of the Petitioners should be admitted as parties to the proceeding if they can proffer an admissible contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714.

B. Petitioners' Proposed Contentions In both their Amended and Supplemental Petitions, Petitioners prof-fer eight contentions for admission and litigation. In the discussion below, the Staff addresses the legal standards governing the admission of contentions in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, followed by the Staff's position on the admissibility of Petitioners' proposed contentions.

1. Legal Standards Governing Admissibility of Contentions Only those contentions which fall within the scope of the proposed action set forth in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

Supervisor Chesbro and the other elected officials should not be permitted to intervene on behalf of their constituents. See Staff Response at 9-10 n. 9.

l' l

l . __. .

0 and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 3 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law may- be admitted for litigation in NRC licensing proceedings. See, eg, Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), A LAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-245, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974); Philadelphia Eledtric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station , Units 2 and 3), AL AB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683, 689 -

(1980). See also Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),

ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289 n.6 (1979).

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b), a petitioner is required to file "a M r.t of contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable speci-ficity. " A petitioner who fails to file at least one contention which satis-fies the requirements of 5 2.714(b) will not be permitted to participate as a party. A proffered contention must be rejected where:

(1) it ~ constitutes .an attack on applicable statutory

requirements;

, (2) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (3) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the petitioner's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (4) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (5) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.

4

. _7_

Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20-21. The purpose of the basis require-ment of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) is: (a) to assure that the matter sought to be put into question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed s above; (b) to establish sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter; and (c) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to 1

defend against or oppose." d. at 20.

At the early stages of a proceeding, petitioners need to identify only the reasons (i .e . , the basis) for each contention. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station ,

Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 548 (1980). The basis stated for each contention need not " detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). Accordingly, in examining contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board may not reach the merits of contentions. Id.; Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20. Nevertheless, the basis for contentions must be sufficiently de-tailed and specific to allow the determinations required by Peach Bottom l to be made and thus assure that an asserted contention raises an issue which clearly is open to adjudication. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.

(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 i

(1976); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station , Units 1 and 2),.

ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).

In addition , a board is not authorized "to admit conditionally for any reason, a contention that falls short of meeting the specificity requirements." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station , Units 1

and 2), ' ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 466 (1982), modified on other grounds, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983). The NRC's Rules of Practice do not per-mit "the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applicant or staff."

Id. at 468.

Finally, a licensing board has no duty to recast contentions offered by a petitioner to remedy the infirmities of the type described in Peach Bottom, supra, in order to make inadmissible contentions meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974). Should a board nevertheless elect to rewrite a petitioner's inadmissible contentions so as to eliminate the infirmities which render the contentions inadmissible, the scope of the reworded contentions may be made no broader than the bases that were previously provided by the petitioner for the inadmissible con-tentions. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units .1 and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105,1114-16 (1982).

2. Staff Position on Petitioners' Proposed Contentions Petitioners' Proposed Contention 1 states:

i There is little discussion or analysis of the impact on the i

local environment and biota of the proposed activities. .

Humboldt Bay is the largest wetland and estuarine habi-tat in the California coastal zone, containing approxi-'

mately 23 percent of the coastal wetlands in California.

The DES does not document the potential significant en-vironmental impacts on these coastal wetlands of long term storage of nuclear materials as is required by the

' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Cali-fornia Coastal Act.

This contention, although phrased in terms of "little discussion or analysis" and in an argumentative tone, asserts that the impact of the proposed amendment on the local environment and biota has not been

. _g-adequately analyzed .in the DES. As part of the contention, Petitioners state that Humboldt Bay is a wetland and estuarine habitat which contains about 23 percent of the coastal wetlands in California and that the DES does not document the " potential significant environmental impacts" of long term storage. Assuming the contention alleges that the. discussion and analysis of environmental impacts is "not adequate," the contention is adequately specific and contains within it a minimally sufficient basis.

Thus, it minimally satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) and should be admitted.

Petitioners' Proposed Contention 2 states:

There is inadequate discussion and analysis of the storage of spent fuel rods in a' spent fuel pool which is already plagued by leakage. The leakage of the pool has persisted since 1966 and continues to this day. The DES states that, " Pumps keep water level in the liner gap lower than the water level in the pool and ground water level ... the water from the liner gap is pumped to the radwaste system." However, such mechanical means of controlling the leak are subject to malfunction and potential impacts of increased contamination have not been discussed. In addition, there is some information in the ER to indicate that there are elevated and trace levels of certain radionuclides in surface soils at the plant site.

'This contention asserts that the DES discussion and analysis of the s

potential environmental impacts due to leakage 'of the spent fuel pool is inadequate . It points out that there is a potential for pumps to malfunction and that there are indications of increased levels of radionuclides on the site. This contention raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific and contains within it a f

minimally sufficient basis. In the Staff's view, it minimally satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and should be admitted.

l l

1 Petitioners' Proposed Contention 3 states:

There is inadequate treatment of the seismic hazards to the site. The DES contains virtually no analysis of relevant scismic factors and only cursory consideration of those hazards' interactions with hazardous materials stored on site.

This is unacceptable given the fact that: a)- the Little Salmon Fault, Bay Entrance Fault, and Buhne Point Fault are located within 21 miles of the facility (the subsurface trace of the Buhne Fault comes within 600 feet of the plant foundation);

b) these faults are capable of generating major earthquakes (with magnitudes up to 7.5) that possibly could destroy the Humboldt facility; and c) the close proximity of the plant to the city of Eureka could contribute to the severity of any emergency in the event of a large earthquake.

This contention apparently asserts that the environmental impacts from " seismic hazards" to the site have not been adequately analyzed.

The contention points out that there are faults near the facility which are capable of generating earthquakes and states that the DES analysis of

" seismic factors" does not adequately consider interaction with " hazardous materials" stored onsite. The contention does not identify these hazardous materials and it is not clear that such materials are within the NRC's jurisdiction to regulate or have a nexus to the proposed action (i.e., the 30 year storage of spent fuel on the site). Consequently, the contention lacks the requisite specificity and does not raise an issue within the scope of the proceeding. In addition, that portion of the contention which states ". . . (c) the close proximity of the plant to the City of Eureka could contribute to the severity of any emergency in the event of a large earthquake" is vague and does not put the parties on notice as to "what they will have to defend against or oppose. "

Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20. Therefore, the Staff is of the view

, that ' the contention fails to satisfy the requirements .of 10 C.F.R.

I 2.714(b)'and should be rejected, b Petitioners' Proposed Contention 4 states:

There is no discussion of evacuation plans to be implemented in the event of a worst case type of accident. For instance, a 1980 earthquake toppled a freeway overpass less than two miles from the plant, despite the epicenter's location being nearly 40 miles away. If a similar earthquake occurred on the adjacent faults , Ilighway 101 would probably be closed which would hamper emergency support activities and evacuation plans.

Petitioners apparently seek to raise the issue of whether the offsite emergency plans for the site will be adequate in the event of a " worst

. case type of accident" at the site, particularly if evacuation of the public

! over earthquake-damaged highways is necessary. The issue of whether adequate emergency response can be taken in event of a nearby seismic

~

event is an issue which the Commission has ruled cannot be considered in individual licensing cases. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-12, 20 NRC 249, 251-52, 254 (1984), aff'd, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F. 2d 1287, l 1305-09 (D.C. Cir. 1964), vacated in nonpertinent part and rehearing granted, 760 F. 2d 1320 (D.C. Cir.1985), aff'd, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir.

1986)(en banc). Since the basis for considering the adequacy of

-4/ If the term " hazardous material" refers to the spent fuel stored at the plant under the SAFSTOR plan, a contention alleging that the environmental impacts resulting from damage to the spent fuel or the storage facility due to seismic events would be a proper topic for litigation in this proceeding. If this is the assertion of the con-tention, it should be rejected as repetitious because the same issue is raised by proposed Contention 7.

. evacuation plans is that the closing of a' highway due to seismic events would hamper emergency support activities, the Petitioners seek to raise an issue precluded from consideration in this proceeding. In addition, the contention is vague since it does not identify the " worst case type accident. " Therefore, the Staff is of the view that the ccatention should be rejected. 5_/

, Petitioners' Proposed Contention 5 states:

Viable alternatives such as shipping spent fuel to locations other than Diablo Canyon were not discussed. It is possible to build an interim facility in a safer and more appropriate place until a permanent repository is constructed. Spent fuel could also be shipped to Hanford, Washington or Idaho Falls, Idaho, as was the case with the Three Mile Island plant. In addition , the petitioners contend that the proposal that SAFSTOR continue for thirty years is inappropriate in view of the real possibility that a permanent repository will be in place by the year 1998. Petitioners submit that the license should be continued only until such time as the federal high level waste repository is available. Under the petitioners' alternate proposal, ~ dismantlement would take place as soon as a high level waste repository is available. The immediate dismantlement proposal is consistent with PGandE's present proposal for decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon facility.

This contention asserts that viable alternatives to the SAFSTOR plan, including shipping the fuel to a permanent repository which could

-5/ To the extent this contention intends to fault the DES for eny 4 failure to discuss emergency planning or evacuation plans in the event of a " worst case type accident," such contention is likewise inadmissible. A contention which would require emergency planning to be described in an environmental statement would seek to impose 1 matters that are beyond the scope of the environmental review required by 10 C.F.R. Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 12mergency planning is a proper subject, rather, for a safety analysis or safety evaluation. Therefore, to the extent this contention raises such a DES issue, it should be rejected as an attack on the Commission's regulations.

J

+ . , - - _ . _

possibly be available before the 30 year storage period expires, have not been considered. This contention is adequately specific and contains a minimally sufficient basis. Therefore, the . Staff believes it minimally satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) and should be admitted.

4 Petitioners' Proposed Contention 6 states:

The DES fails to address the impact of a major flood ,

tsunami, or fire at the plant alone, or in conjunction with a major earthquake. As was mentioned in the petition to intervene, the DES failed to discuss the possible impacts of

any of these phenomena on the people of Humboldt County or

the surrounding environment. This oversight is significant given the fact that a tsunami previously destroyed a portion of Crescent City in 1964. Crescent City is 80 miles north of the facility. A 50 or 100 year flood coupled with high tides could possibly inundate the Humboldt plant , destroy fuel storage tanks, and cause unknown damage to the containment structures, and associated buildings and equipment. A seri-ous fire could cause similar damage, particularly if caused by an earthquake.

I Although somewhat vague, this contention apparently asserts that the DES does not address the impact of e flood, tsunami, or . fire at the plant, either alone or in conjunction with a major eardiquake. Thus the 4

issue raised is that the Staff has not analyzed the environmental impacts of these phenomena on the plant and the surrounding environment. The contention also apparently raises a safety issue regarding the SAFSTOR plan by asserting that the consequences of these phenomena on the facility have not been analyzed.

The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention to the extent that it challenges the adequacy of the Staff's analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from a flood, tsunami, etc. during the proposed action (i.e., the 30 year storage of spent fuel). However, to

. the extent this contention seeks to raise safety issues concerning whether there has been an analysis of the plant's ability to withstand the effects of these phenomena during the SAFSTOR period, the contention lacks the requisite basis and specificity and should be rejected. The contention makes only vague reference to the phenomena and does not reference the Licensee's safety analysis which has been available to Petitioners.

Without such specificity, other parties do not have sufficient notice of the nature of the issue raised.

Consequently, if the contention is limited to raising a challenge to the adequacy of the analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from the cited phenomena during the SAFSTOR period, the Staff is of the view that it meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) and should be admitted.

Petitioners' Proposed Contention 7 states:

The DES. fails to address the impact on the fuel rods stored in the spent fuel pond, if the storage pool were to be emptied of water by a major earthquake and/or damaged by falling debris. During an earthquake, groundwater levels around the plant could fluctuate wildly and thereby allow the leakage from the fuel pond to be transported out into the bay by fluctuations in the water table. In addition, the DES fails to address the possible environmental impacts which could occur if one or both of the natural gas f" red units were damaged by .

an earthquake.

-This contention asserts that the DES does not address the impact on the fuel rods stored in the spent fuel pool if the pool water were emptied by an earthquake or the pool damaged by falling debris. As a basis for this contention. Petitioners state that any pool leakage could be trans-ported to the bay. The contention apparently seeks to raise the issue of

whether the environmental impacts of pool leakage due to a seismic event have been adequately analyzed. If this is the thrust of the contention, it is adequately specific, raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding and is supported by a minimally sufficient basis.

The Staff objects, however, to the last sentence of the contention which seeks to litigate the environmental impacts associated with earthquake damage at the two gas-fired units on the site. These units are not within the scope of the notice of hearing published on this amendment application. Consequently, the environmental impacts resulting from seismic damage at these units are not proper issues for litigation and the Licensing Board does not have jurisdiction to decide such issues.

See the discussion regarding proposed Contention.8, infra. Accordingly, provided the contention is limited to challenging the adequacy of the analysis of the environmental impacts of pool leakage due to a seismic event and the last sentence of the contention is deleted, the Staff does not oppose the admission of the contention because it would minimally satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b).

Petitioners' Proposed Contention 8 states:

Irrespective of whether the license is modified to allow for decommissioning under PGandE's 30 year plan, or is modified to only extend until the federal high level waste repository becomes available, petitioners contend that the license conditions requiring seismic investigation and analysis should not be deleted. The Humboldt facility is sited in an area of great and ever-changing seismic activity. Petitioners contend I that the discontinuance of the utilities seismic investigation and analysis program would have a detrimental impact on the health and safety of themselves and residents of Humboldt County.

This contention asserts that the license conditions requiring seismic investigation and analysis should not be deleted. The basis alleged for this statement is that due to the changing seismic activity in the region, such deletion would have a detrimental impact. As stated, the contention is adequately specific and puts forth a minimally sufficient basis. The contention should be limited, however, to those issues currently before the Board as posed by the notice of opportunity for hearing and the license amendment application, namely, seismic investigation and analysis.

It is established NRC law that the jurisdiction and subject matter authority of a Licensing Board is established by the order or notice giv-ing rise to the proceeding. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station ,

Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616,12 NRC 419, 426 (1980); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site), ALA B-601, 12 NRC 18, 24 (1980); Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), ALAB-577, 11 NRC 18, 25-26, 30, rev'd on other grounds, CLI-80-12,11 NRC 514 (1980); Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Mar-ble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 170-71 (1976). See also Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Gen-erating Station , Nuclear-1) , ALAB-619, 12 NRC 558, 565 (1980).

Adjudicatory ' boards do not have plenary jurisdiction in Commission proceedings. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-825, 22 NRC 725, 790 (1985). Thus, a board's jurisdiction in an amendment proceeding is " limited by the Commission's notice of hearing" and " extend [s] only to those issues fairly raised by the application."

Zion, supra,12 NRC at 426; see Catawba, supra, 22 NRC at 791 (board's jurisdiction in an operating license proceeding where the hearing notice

generally referred to the application extended over all matters properly .

included in the application).

The notice giving rise to th'e instant proceeding was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 24458). This Licensing Board's jurisdiction is limited to a consideration of the Licensee's July 30, 1984 application for license amendment, as revised by later submittals.

Petitioners may not challenge, through a contention raised in this proceeding, the previous deletion of the requirement for seismic monitoring which apparently is of concern to Petitioners. See Amended Petition at 4-5, 8, 9-10, 12, 14. The requirement for seismic monitoring was part of the seismic design upgrade program which had to be 4

completed prior to a return to facility power operation following the 1976 refueling outage and was among the requirements imposed through License Contention E by the May 21, 1976 " Order for Modification of License."

License Condition E.2.e, which required reinstatement of a seismic monitoring network prior to power operation, was deleted by a previous amendment issued under a separate notice. The Licensee's application to delete License Condition E.2.e was dated December 16, 1983, and sup-

~

plemented on March 7, 1986. A notice of consideration ~of the proposed issuance of this amendment (attached) was. published in the Federal Register on April 23, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 15406) and the Staff issued the amendment on June 20, 1986. No request for hearing or comments on the Staff's proposed no significant hazards determination were received.

In short, this Licensing Board does not have subject matter jurisdic-tion over the deletion of License Condition E.2.e (seismic monitoring) and W

there is no pending proceeding on the previously issued amendment delet-

'ing the requirement for seismic monitoring. In addition, this Licensing Board has no independent authority to initiate a proceeding on the previ-ously granted amendment. Shearon Harris, supra,11 NRC 18 at 30; see also Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1, and 2), ALAB-381, 5 NRC 582, 589-91 (1977). 6_/

In summary, if the contention is limited to challenging the del? tion of the requirements for seismic investigations and analysis which are set forth in those- portions of License Condition E which currently exist in the license (and does not include the seismic monitoring previously delet-ed with License Condition E.2.e), the Staff is of the view that the co'n-tention minimcIly satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) and should be admitted.

ITI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Petitioners have adequately demonstrated their standing to intervene, have proffered at least one admissible con-

~

tention pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, and should be admJtted as parties to the proceeding. Petitioners' proposed Contentions 3 and 4 are inadmissible and should be rejected, but proposed Contentions 1, 2, 5, C, 7, and 8, with the limitations- stated above,

~6/ Similarly, the Licensing Board would have not authority to grant a late petition to intervene on the previous amendment if Petitioners j were to file such a petition unless and until the Commission delegates such authority over that amendment to the Licensing Board.

i

satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 and should be admitted for. litigation.

Respectfully submitted, Mit A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of October,1986 1

Fed;r:1 Registir / Vol. 51, No. 78 / Wzdnasd:y, April 23,I 1986 / N tices 15391 By order of the Commission. I NUCLEAR REGULATORY

~

Comments should be addressed to the IssuedaApn111.1986. COMMISSION Rules and Procedures Branch. Division Kenneth R. Mason, of Rules and Records. Office of .

j Bi-Weekly Notice; Applications and

- Secretary. Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l > Amendments To Operating Ucense* Commission Washington, DC 20555.

[FR Doc. 86-9099 Filed 4-2246. 8 45 em]

, ,,, , involving No Significant Hazards. By May 23,1986, the licensee may file Considerations .

a request for a hearing with respect to j I. Background issuance of the amendment to the NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE subject facility operating license and ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L.) 97- any person whose interest may be g 415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission afffected by this proceeding and who National Councli on the Arts; Meeting (the Commission is publishing this wishes to participate as a party in the regular bi. weekly) notice. Pub. L 97-415 g proceeding must file a written petitir' .

j Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the - revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy for leave to intervene. Requests %r a

'; Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Act of1954. as am, ended (the Act), to hearing and petitions for lean to

L.92-463), as amended, notice is hereby require the Commission to publish intervene shall be filed in a< cordance given that a meeting of the National not!ce of any amendments issued, or with the Commission's "Rr es of s

. Council on the Arts will be held on May proposed to be issued under a new . Practice for DomeW 8 ih asing l

2-3.1986 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and provision of section 189 of the Act.This - Proceedings"in to CFR Part 2. If a on May 4,1986 from 9.00 a.m. to 1:00 provision grants the Co:nmission the

request for a hearing or petition for i- p.m. in Room M-09 of the Nancy Hanks authority to issue and make immediately leave to intervene is filed by the above Center.1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, effective any amendment to an date, the Commission or an Atomic Washington. DC 20506. operating license upon a determination

(; A portion of this meeting will be open Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission that such. by the Commission or by the Chairman i to the public on Friday May 2.1986 from amendment involves no sigmficant of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Saturday May hazards consideration, notwithstanding h 3.1986 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The the pendency before the Commission of Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the j, topics for discussion willinclude a request for a hearing from any person.

This bi-weekly notice includes all designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

[ Program Review and Guidelines for Board willissue a notice of hearing or p State Programs. Arts in Education. Folk amendments issued, or proposed to be i issued. since the date of publication of an appropriate order.

Aits Literature. Dance, and Music: plus s require by 10 CFR 2.714. a

'. future options for the Advancement the last bi-weekly notice which was published o April 9,1986 (51 FR 12222), ion or e oi e sha t

[ Prograrn, and the future of Challenge / {e

. Long Term Enhancement. t roug Apr 14.1986. ,

the petitioner in the proceeding. and The remaining sessions on Saturday. NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF how that mterest may be affected by the May 3 from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and ors ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO results of the proceeding.The petition Sunday. May 4 from 9:00 a.m. to 1,:00 FACILITY OPERATING IJCENSE AND should specifically explain the reasons p.m. are for the purpose of Council PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT why intervention should be permitted review, discussion, evaluation and ilAZARDS CONSIDERATION with particular reference to the recommendation on applications for DETERMINATION AND following factors:(1)The nature of the financial assistance under the National OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING petitioner's right under the Act to be Foundation on the Arts and the The Commission hcs made a proposed made a party to the proceeding: (2) the determination that the following nature and exte'nt of the petitioner's ciud 8 discussion infcrmat -

property, financial, or other m, terest in amendment requests involve no given in confidence to the agency by significant hazards consideration. Under the proceeding: and (3) the possible grant applicants, and for disension and effect of any order which may be the Commission's regulations in to CFR development of confidential budgetary entered in the proceeding on the 50.92, this means that operation of the projections and related plans to be petitioner's interest. The petition should facility in accordance with the proposed submitted to the Office of Management also identify the specific aspect (s) of the and Budget and the Congress. In amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or subject matter of the proceeding as to accordance with the determination of which petitioner wishes to intervene.

I consequences of an accident previously the Chairman published in the Federal evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of Any person who has filed a petition for Register of February 13,1980. these a new or different kind of accident from leave to intervene or who has been sessions will be closed to the pubhc any accideat previously evaluated; or ( ) admitted as a party may amend the pursuant to subsections (c)(4),(6) and petition without requesting leave of the involve a significant reduction in a 9(B) of Title 5. United States Code. margin of safety.The basis for this Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the y Further information with reference t proposed determination for each first prehearing conference scheduled in l this meeting can be obtained from Mr. amendment request is shown below. ' the proceeding but such an amended John 11. Clark Advisory Committee The Commission is seeking public petition must satisfy the specificity l , Management Officer. National i

comments on this proposed requirements described above.

Endowment for the Arts, Washington, detecnination. Any comments received Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to DC 20506, or call (202) 682-5433*

within 30 days after the date of the'first prehearing conference John 11. Clark, publication of this notice will be scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner Director. Of6ce ofCouncilandFbnel considered in making eny final shall file a supplement to the petition to Operations. Nationa/Endowrnentfor the Arts.

determination. The Commission will not intervene which must include a list of April 17,1986. normally make a final determination the contentions which are sought to be Int Doc. 86-9017 Filed 4- L 48: 8 45 arr,) unless it receives a request for a litigated in the matter, and the bases for

! eumso coot ts37-on-u hearing. each contention set forth with ,

l l

l l 'a

15392 Federal Register t/ Nol. 51, No. 78 / Wednesday,' NpN) 23, '1986 / Notices

?

reasonable specificity. Contentions shall . Inform the Commission by a foll-free i 4.7.7.e.4) to reflect that heaters are only be limited to matters within the scope of telephone call to Western Union at (800) in the pressurization system of the the amendment under consideration. A 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).

petitioner who fai.s to file such a l control room ventilation system and a.re supplement which satisfies these The Western Union operator should be

• not also in the recirculation system.

given Datagram Identification Number requirements with respect to at least one 3737 and the following message (4) TS 4.7.11.1.3(c)(1) would be contention will not be permitted to editorially corrected to delete " cell participate as a party. addressed to (Branch ChiefA petitioner's plates" from the 18. month. visual name and telephone number, date Those permitted to intervene become inspection the 24-volt battery bank'of petition was mailed: plant name; and the fire pump diesel. Plates are inside parties to the proceeding. subject to any publication date and page number of the battery and cannot be visually limitations in the order granting leave to this Federal Register notice. A copy of observed without destroying the intervene, and have the opportunity to the petition should also be sent to the '

participate fully in the conduct of the integrity of the battery.

Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear hearing, including the opportunity to (5) TS Table 3.7-5 would be' Regulatory Commission, Washington, present evidence and cross-examine DC 20555, and to the attorney for the administratively corrected to add newly ,

witnesses. licensee. installed fire sprinkler systems in the If a hearing is requested, the Nontimely filings of petitions for leave Service Water Intake Structure.

Commission will make a final to intervene, amended petitions, (6) TS 4.7.11.3.2(b)(2) and determination on the issue of no supplemental petitions and/or requests 4.7.11.3.3(b)(2) would be clarified significant hazards consideration.The for hearing will not be entertained editcrially to delete reference to nozzles final determination will serv ce to absent a determination by the for the " puff tests" during flow tests of decide when the hearing is held. Commission, the presiding officer or the high pressure CO2 systems.The test will If the final determination is that the still be performed, and the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing amendment request involves no Board, that the petition and/or request administrative change would clarify significant hazards consideration, the should be granted based upon a how the surveillances are done to eliminate misinterpretations. Thus, a Commission rnay issue the amendment balancing of factors specified in to CFR.

and make it immediately effective. personnel hazard or an increase in the notwithstanding the request for a 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2714(d). likelihood of plant transient would be For further details with respect to this hearing. Any hearing held would take action, see the application for d' place after issuance of the amendment amendment which is available for ptibh,c d}3 7 Table 3.7-G would be If the final determination,is that the inspection at the Commission's Public -a .a orrecie roam amendment involves a significant Document Room 1717 H Street,NW., 9, , gg 9 hazards consideration, any hearing held Washington, DC, and at the local public stations and to reflect a newly installed uld tak place before the issuance of document room for the particular facility hose s r locker mside ta Normally, the Commission will not corrected to reverse hydrant numbers issue the amendment until the Alabama Power Company, Docket Nos. for the east and west Service Water expiratiori d the 30-day notice period. 50-348 and 50-364 Joseph M. Farley intake structures in order to correct an s Howevo, should circumstances change Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.1 and 2 existing error. ~

dur6g the notice period such that failure Houston County, Alabama (9) TS 4.8.3.1. 3/4.8.3 and Table 3.8-1 tc act in a timely way would result, for Date ofamendments requestr (Unit 2 on.y) would be changed to ei ample,in derating or shutdown of the December 9,1985, supplemented ehmmate perrodic TS requirements for fa ;ility, the Commission may issue the February 18,1986. fuse testing.The NRC staff has tcense amendment before the Description of amendments request. Indicated that surveillance testing of expiration of the 30-day notice period, The licensee proposes administrative fuses is not meaningful and that provided that its final determination is changes to Technical Specifications additional handling of fuses during that the amendment involves no (TS). These changes involve sixteen surveillance testing may compromise significant hazards consideration. The areas of the specifications described fuse integrity. Also, the change would final determination will consider all generally in the following groupings: renumber sections and delete the public and State comments received (1) Fire detection instruments of Table tabular listing of overcurrent protection before action is taken. Should.the 3.3-12 contain smoke and heat devices. Thus, the Table 3.8-111 sting of Commission take this action,it will detectors. TS 4.3.3.9.1 would be clarified overcurrent protection devices would be publish a notice ofissu'ance and provide by an administrative change to allow maintained by thelicensee and for opportunity for a hearing after aerosol or heat. as appropriate, fc'r controlled in accordance with 10 CFR i issuance. The Commission expects that testing. The numbers of detectors and 50.59 in a similar manner and consistent the need to take this action will occur room identification would also be with NRC staff actions taken for Generic very infrequently. corrected. New detectors would be Letter 84-13 for the snubberlisting.

A request for a hearing or a petition added as an enhancement to the TS. (10 TS 3.9.14 Action 1 would be for leave to intervene must be filed with (2) TS 4.5.3.2 would be changed corrected administratively to show the the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. editorially to require the vertification of correct valve size of the semi-purge NuJear Regulatory Commission, position of a breaker or disconnect isolation valves as 8 inches to agree Washington. DC 20555. Attentiom . device that is required to be locked with the existing plant design.

Docketing and Service Branch, er may open. Separate disconnect devices were (11) TS Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 for be delivered to the Commission's Public added per NUREG-0 37 for use in an Radioactive Liquid and Caseous Waste e Dosument Room,1717 H Street, NW., emergency.Therefore the change adds Sampling and associated table notations I Washington. DC, by the above date. an administrative option and is would be clarified. For Table 4.11-1 3 Where petitions are filed during the last considered as an editorial change. Notation b., and for Table 4.11-2 ten f10) days of the notice period, it is (3) Editorial corrections would be Notation i., a sentence is added to I requested that the petitioner promptly so made in surveillance (TS 4.7.7.b and require reporting of deviations from I l '

e 15406 Federal Register f.Vol. 51, No. 78./. Wednesday April 23,1986 { Notices -

Description of amendment request states that the proposed amendment different kind of accident from any' The proposed amendment would change would not involve a significant increase , accident previously analyzed because; -

the Technical Specifications (TS) in the probability or consequences of an necessary for the operation of Cycle 12. this reload is very similar to girevious -

accident previously evaluated because . , -

• The changes are as followsi(1) Add four the methods used to analyze the lasa of reloads. . ' sed amendme'nt wou ARTS (Average Power Range Monitor, The propo Coolant Accident response of the. litvolve e significant reduction in the..e Rod Block Monitor and Technical BP8DRB299L and P8DRB284LB fuel types margin of safety as demonstrated by the :

Specification Improvements Program) conform to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K curves to the TS. (2) Afodify Table 3.11.1 transient analyses. This change is the .

requirements and are identical to'those result of a reactor core reloading in to reflect the addition of Maximum' previously used.The results of the Loss '

Average Planar Linear lieat Generation which no fuel assemblies are of Coolant Accident response for significantly different fr'om those found .-

Rate (NiAPLifGR) for the new BP8DRB299L fuel demonstrate BP8DRB299L fuel type. (3) Change the acceptable previously in Monticello -

compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, title of Table 3.11.2 and Afinimum Appendix K. -

reloads. For these reasons, the proposed Critical Power Ratio (h1CPR) limits for - The proposed amendment would not changes do not involve a significant the fuel types listed in the table.The create the possibility of a new or ~ hazards consideration. . 4.

new title " Rated hfinimum Critical In addition to the above ihanges.

different kind of accident from any ,

Power Ratio" would be abbreviated as accident previously analyzed because there are several administrative changes "MCPR(100)." And (4) Administrative (Item 4) associated with the E changes the Loss of Coolant A,ccident response changes to text and the tables for demonstrates the similarity of this fuel described in items 1 throtigh 3 (e.g.,

correct references to reflect the TS type to previously analyzed fuel. correction of the references. table of changes in the above three items. - The proposed amendment would not contents. associated bases of TS

Basisforproposedno sigmficant . involve a sigmficant reduction m the changes. change in the title of the table.

bazards considemtion determination: margin of safety because the Loss of etc.). The Commission has provided The Comm,is,sion has provid,e standards Coolant Accident response . guidance concerning the application of q for determming o.hether a sigmficant demonstrates compliance with 10 CFR the standards for making a no f hazards consic'erations determmation - Part 50 Appendix K.The infinite significant hazards consideration eusts as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). For multiplication factor for the new fue1 determination by providing certain Item (1) " Addition of ARTS curves". the type is 1.25 which would conform with ,

examples (48 FR 14870). One of these licensee states the proposed amendment the requirements in Section 5.5 of the . examples (i),is a change that constitutes would not involve a sigmficant increase Afonticello TS. Therefore, the addition of o purely administrative change to TS:

in the probability or consequences of an f# I h h BP8DR,B299L fuel and AfAPLiiGR . cons st ncy tfiro6ghout he

~

accident previously es aluated. This extension of the P8DRB284LB fuel type ,

change has no effect on the probability would not involve a sigmficant correction of an error, or a change in

or consequences of previously evaluated reduction in the margin of safety. This nomenclature.The administrative '

accidents, since the s,ame information is change is the result of a reactor core changes associated with the changes being used to determme the limiting reloading in which no fuel assemblies proposed in items L 2 & 3 and grouped h1APLIIGR and h1CPR values as in the are significantly different from those together as item 4 fall in this category custing specifications,and only the found acceptable previouslyin and thus the staff proposes to determine i location of the curves is changing. hionticello reloads. that these changes involve no significant l The proposed amendment would not in Item (3) above, hlCPR limits are hazards considerations. ..

create the possibility of a new or . changed for fuel types listed in Table The staff has reviewed the licensee's different kind of accident from any 3.11.2.This is the result of the transient no significant hazards consideration accident previously analyzed.This analysis performed for the Cycle 12 determination and agrees with the change would not create the possibility operation.The changes in the title of the licensee s analysis.Therefore, the staff -

of a new or different kind of accident, table and the abbreviations are proposes to determine that the since the same information is being used administrative in nature. The licensee application for amendment involves no to determine the limiting hfAPLifGR and has evaluated the proposed change and significant hazards consideration.

h1CPR values as in the existing states that the proposed amendment will Loco /PublicDocumentRoom specifications and only 'he Tocation of not involve a significant increase in the location: Environmental Conservation the curves is changing. probability or consequences of an Library, hiinneapolis Public Library,300 The proposed amendment would not,

~

accident previously evaluated because Nicollet h1all. hiinneapolis, hiinnesota involve a significant reduction in the the proposed changes are the result of 5540L margin of safety.This change has no evaluation of the Cycle 12 transient Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald effect on margin of safety, since the analyses. The results demonstrate that Charnoff, Esq.. Shaw, Pittman. Potts and same curves are being used to determine the transient analyses results are within Trowbridge.1800 hf Street. NW..

the limiting h1APLliGR and h1CPR all acceptable criteria. Washington, DC 20036.

values as in the existing specifications Therefore, this change would not and only the location of the curves is NRCPm/ect Director: John A.

involve a significant increase in the Zwolinski.

changing. probability or consequences of an Pacific Cas and Electric Company, in item 2 above, the licensee proposes accident previously evaluated. With i

use of a new fuel type (BP8DRB299L respect to thermal. hydraulic stability,it Docket No 50-133,ilumboldt Bay GE-7 Barrier Fuel) for Cycle 12 was not necessary to perform a stability - Power Plant Unit No. 3 Eureka * '

operation. In addition, five columns of analysis for Cycle 12. since Cycle 12 is Californ*ia Table 3.11.2 have been combined into - typical of previously evaluated cores Date ofomendment request: .

two and hfAPillGR limits for the - which had an acceptable stability December 16.1983, as revised Afarch 7 P8DRB2MLB fuel type are extended to margin. 1986.

45.000 h1WD/ST. The licensee's The proposed amendment would not Description ofpmendment request:

evaluation of the proposed changes , _ create the possibdity of a new or The licensee requests that license k

3 ,

i Federal Register / Vol 51,'No. 78 / Nednesday,!ApYif2h,'1986Y otideal ' 15N)I condition E.2.e be deleted. License Library,41 I Street (County Court *

' ~

j condition E.".e was established by the House) Eureka, California 9M017 -

any accident previcusly evaIugteSNor'(3)

Order of the NRC dated May 21:1976. ' Involve a significant reduction l'n a . ~ '

Attorneyforliccasee:Phillip A'. margin of safety.

~ '

'. N ' ~

The license condition required the - Crane. Jr., Pacific Gas and Electric ' ' - .

reinstatement of a micrcsersmic- Ccmpany, Post OiTice Box 7442, San ' A discussion of these standa2iai moni!oring network to gatherdato for Francisco. California 94120.'

seismic studies as a part of the; . - MiCPmfec/ Director:Herberi N. ' , c amendment they relate (1)Does'the to this proposed license involve a significant.

amendmen

%-i conditions for restarting fiumboldt Day - Berkow. ~ '

Power riant, Unit No. 3 (the facility). increase in the probability or Since the above Order was issued the Power Authority of ths State of New consequences of an accident pr'eviously York Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point evaluated?

licensee has decioed not to restart the ..

facility and has submitted a Unit No. 3. Westchester County, New Neither the probibility ner the decommissicning plan. York consequences of an accident are Basisforpropcsedno significant Date ofamendmentwguest:}uly 1. Increated since only the operating -

hazards consideration determination:. 1965, as Nvised March 10,1986. requirements for kcactor Coolant Pump License condition F.2.e was established es  ! " "# RCP starts,in the LTOPS range of to require a seismic data collection n desc b a re I n to . peration, are adjusted to compensate system as part of the conditions for a for temperature related instrument restarting the facility fc!!owing its das noticed o ug i 5,1 85 ( err rs.The secondary to primary shutdown on July 2,1976. We have h th maximum allowable temperature esaluated the proposed deletion of 32e01)

),, g he ,e s T e differentialis reduced. thereby

!icense condition E.2.e in accordance Overpressure Protection System minimizing a possible heat input into the with 10 CFR Part 50.92. The proposed (LTOPS)' reactor vessel following the start of an change would not: The revision contained in this RCP.

(1) Involve a significant increase in appli;ation is based on the results of a (2) Does the proposed license the probability or consequences of an recent reevaluation concerning the amendment create the possibilityof a accident previously evaluated. The simplified use of LTOPS by the control new or different kind of accident from -

microseismic network was required t room operators by incli. ding plant any accident previously evaluate?

specific instrument uncertamties into The possibility of a new kind of '

obtain seismic information for studies related to the restart of the facility. It the related Technical Specifications. accident is not created since the '

does not provide any function related t Accordingly, the values given for the initiating event for the heat input case is facility operations or the present maximum permissible temperature - not changed, nor are any physical plant shutdown condition of the facility, nor is differential between steam generator.

moddications being made. The proposed it used in conjunction with any safety and RCS were reduced to account for change will simplify the operators *s use related system.Thus the probability of totalinstrument errors. These values of the LTOPS Technical Specifications, an accident previously evaluated could appearin the action statements of (3) Does the proposed amendment not be affected by discontinuing Section 3.1.A.1.h. (Pages 3.1-la and 3.1 involve a sigmficant reduction in a operation of the network. In addition, 1b) and the curve block notes on the margin of safety?

the network does not provide mitigation related figures (Figures 3.LA-1 throagh By incorporating the instrument errors of the consequences of any accidents. 3.1.A-4). in the LTOPS Technical Specfications, Therefore. the proposed amendment In addition,it should be noted that the the margin of safety regarding the '

would not increase the probability or errors asuciated with RCS pressere and reactor vessel pressure-temperature pressurizer level were also reevaluated. limits is not decreased. The calculated consequences of an accident previously evaluated. it was verified that the indicated LTOPS temperature mlated .

parameters, provided by contrul room measurement uncertainties for the (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any - readings, account for the related process - maximum temperature ddferential previously evaluated because it was not measurement uncertainties. betwecn t he steam generators and RCS The purpose of the revision is to do not take credit for any of the installed for any safety related function ,

and does not provide any function- enhance the operators' use of the LTOPS Appendix G curve conservatismsJ Technical Specifications. This result will Based on the above, the staff proposes related to the operation or maintenance of the facility. be achieved by enabling the operato*s to to determine that the proposed changes use direct control room readings, rather do not involve a significant hazards (3) Involve a significant reduction in than having to compensate for various the margin of safety because the consideration.

instrument errors themselves. LocalPublicDecument Room monitoring network does not perform Basisforproposedno sig,aficant any safety related function and. location White Plains Public Library, hazards consideration determination: 100 Afartine Avenue, White Plains New therefore, could not contribute to the The Commission has provided margin of safety.Thus, the deletion of York 10601.

standards for determining whether a Attorneyforlicensee:Mr. Charles ht the requirement for the microseismic significant hazards consideration exists monitoring network will not reduce the Pratt,10 Columbus Circle, New York,

~ as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed New York 10019.

margin of safety. amendment to an ope' rating license for a Therefore, based on the above NRCPm/ectD!metorate Stsven A.

facility involves no significant hazards Varga. -

considerations and the fact that the considerations if operation of the facility facility is permanently shutdown the ,

in accordance with a proposed - Southern California Edision Company .

NRC Staff has determined that this amendment would noti (1) Involve a.. ,, . et. al, Docket No. 50-206, San Onofre .

proposed amendment will riot mvolve a significant increase in the probability or- Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1,e rdgnificant hazards consideration.

consequences of an accident previously San Diego County, California 'i ..

LocalPublic Document Room er aluated. or (21 Create the possibility of : Date of amendment mquest:

location: Eureka-Ilumboldt County . - a new of dif'erent kind of accident from November 7,1985.

l 00M ETED i- , UiNRC l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '86 0CT 15 P1

10

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

t- offik GF sio t ugy 00CKt BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD NgEFVICL In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-133 OLA COMPANY )

) (Decommissioning)

(Ilumboldt Bay Power Plant )

Unit No. 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING AND AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, 4 first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of October,1986:

• Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman *Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

• Dr. James H. Carpenter Scott L. Fielder, Esq.

Administrative Judge 517 Third Street, Suite 14 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Eureka, CA 95001' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard F. Locke, Esq.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Law Department Appeal Board P.O. Box 7442 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, CA 94120 Washington, DC 20555

• Atomic Ssfety and Licensing Board

• Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 b

Mitt I A.~ /YounlY I

& V Cou qekfor NRC Staff

-