ML20205K547

Response Opposing Rl Anthony/Friends of the Earth 860205 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re 851218 Proposed Schedular Amend from Testing Certain Excess Flow Check Valves for 14-wk Period.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20205K547
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/25/1986
From:	Vogler B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-200 OLA, NUDOCS 8602270516
Download: ML20205K547 (10)

Text

_

c' dh RB"5 00CMETED llSNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- BEFORE T!*E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAP 26 P3:15 Ct 0 9 u e:,;-

In the Matter of ) kgUMyli . a

)

Pl!!L ADELPillA ell'CTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) MP99t OL#

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

hl.SPCNSF OF NRC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY AliTI:ONYlF0F REG,ARDING LICENSEE'S_ AMENDMENT REQUEST

1. INTRODUCTION On February 5, 1986, R. L. Anthony / Friends of the Earth in the Delattare Valley (collectively " FOE") filed an amended petition to intervene and request for a hearing in the captioned matter. FOE's petition con-ccrns the Licensee's request for a one-time schedular cmendment from testing certa;r. excess flow check valves in certain instrumentation lines for a period of approximately fourteen weeks. For the reasons set forth below the NRC str.ff opposes FOE's petition and urges that it be denied.

II. BACKGROUND On December 16, 1985, the Licensee, in a letter to the NRC, re-quested nn cmendment to its Limerick Unit 1 operating license. The j Licensee requested approval, on a one-time-only basis, for temporarily cxtending certain surveillance requirements in the Technical Specifica-j- tions, which must be performed nominally every 18 months and which can only be done when the plant is shutdown. The change would extend the

, 18 month surveillance interval by fourteen weeks beyond the maximum

' DESIGNATED ORIGINAll

9602270516 860225 ',

. yt y.

"r g -f /g PDR ADOCK 05000352 ,'a* -

g PDR <-

15 percent extension allowed by the Technical Specifications. This would permit the Licensee to delay performing this testing until a maintenance and surveillance outage which is scheduled to begin on or before May 26, 198G.

The NRC staff after a review of the Licensee's request determined that the condition of the valves in question would not change significantly during the short extension period.

D e safety related aspects of extending this surveillance interval on a one time basis for about three months are insignificant for the following reasons. (1) Flow through the valvec or frcrn the '

lines in which the" are loccted will be limited by the small line size and the provision of flow restricting orifices to further reduce potential flow rates, (2) Any leakage frcri these lines out-side of primary contniment would be contained in the secondary contniment and processed b~ the standby gas treatment syst<rn. he analysis of such an event has already been perfomed and is includ-ed in the Final Safety Analysis Report in Section 15.6.2. As indi-cated in the FSAR there would likely be a variety of indicators to the opprator of a failed instrtrient line thus alerting plant staf f to the need to isolcte the line by use of other manual valves in the line. D e staff has previously reached the conclusion in section 15.6 of the SIR that the Limerick instrument line design is seceptable. (3) % e licensee has examined the records of the ini- [

tial flow testing perfomed on these valves and found that all valves were tested successfully. % e licensee further states that, bcsed on available data, the valves are believed to be highly reli-able in perfoming their functicn of checking flow. h e staff concludes that the condition of the valves is not expected to -

change cignificantly during the short extension period.

Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that extension of the ir.tcrval for the surveilltnce testing by 14 weeks en a one-time only basis is acceptable because the increased surveillance inter-val does not significantly increase the possibility that a unde-teeted failure will occur in the instrtrientation line excess flow check valves covered by this Technical Specification. Safety Eval-untion, Support Amendment No.1, Facility Operating License No. NPF-39, Philadelphia Electric Canpany, (Limerick Generating Station, Unit No. 1), at ?, (February 6, 1986.)

Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff concluded:

4.0 Conclusion he staf f has concluded, based on the considera-tions discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonchic assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be i

.. conducted in canpliance with the Camission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the co mon de-fense and security nor to the health and safety of the public, d.

aC 3.

On: Februsry 5, 1986, FCE filed its amended petition to intervene and request for a hearing. M For the reasons that follow, the NRC staff opposes FOE's amended petition.

III. DISCUSSION A. The, Standards for Intervention Sectic t IE5a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, r.s amended, 42 U.S.C. E 2?39(a), provides that:

In any preceeding under [the1 Act, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license . . . the Co mission shall crant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be aficcted by the proceeding, and shall acinit any such person as a party to such preceeding.

10 C.F.R. Sectior. 0.714(a)(?) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, re-quires that a petition to intervene in a Commission proceeding set forth with particularity:

1/ The NRC's Federal Register Notice of Licensee's amendment request occurred on December 26, 1985 and stated that any comments and/or petitions to intervene must be received by January 26, 1986. A copy of this Notice was sent to Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Vice Presi-dent, Philadelphia Electric Co. by letter from the NRC on January 27, 1986. This !ctter was also sent to Mr. Anthony, who indicates thet he first became aware of this amendment by virtue of this letter and filed his initial petition on January 30, 1986.

Through inadvertence a copy of the Federal Register Notice was not sent to Mr. Anthony until he received a copy of the letter to Mr. Bauer. By letter dated February 6, 1986, William L. Clements, Chief, NRC Docketing anu Service Branch returned FOE's January 30, 1986 pleading because the NRC's Office of the General Counsel had determined that its pleading failed to conform to the requirements for pleadings found in the NRC's regulations. Accord-(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

(1) thc interest of the petitioner in the proceeding:

(0) how that interest may be affected by the results of the pro-ceeding; and (3) the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

In order for intervention to be granted, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Por.rd designated to rule on petitions to intervene and/or requests for hearing must find that the petition satisfies these standards. $I In deterriining whether the requisite interest prescribed by both Section 189n cf the Atomic Energy Act and Section 0.714 of the Commis-sion's Rules of Practice is present, the Commission has h eld that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are controlling. Portland General E'fe,tric Co. (Pobble Springs Nuclear Pla n t . Units 1 and 2),

CL1-76-07, 4 NRC 610, 61::-14 (1976). Thus, there must Oc a showing (1) that the action being challenged could cause " injury-in-fact" to the person secking to intervenc and (2) that such injury is arguably within (FOOTNOTE CONTINiiED FROS. PREV'Ot:S PAGF) ingly, Nr. Clemtnis advised FCE that its petitfor would not be dock-eted, but noted that when a conforming petition from FOE is received it would be docketed. In view of the above, the NRC staff does not believe that c discussion of the timeliness of FOE's petition is warranted.

0/ Intervention may also be granted as a matter of discretion to some petitioners who are not entitled to intervention as a matter of right

~

l if the petitioner can show that the Commission's specific criteria weigh in favor of discretionary intervention. See Portland Ceneral Electric Com pany , et al. (Pobtle Springs NucIcar Pla n t , Units 1 I and 2), CL1-76-27, 4 HRC 610, 616 (1970). Since, as described l below, the NRC staff helleves FOE has failed to satisfy adn of the above criteria, it has nothing to add that would be helpful in creat-ing a sound record in this proceeding. Id. Therefore, the NRC staff need not discuss discretionary interveliiton further.

l

. l the " zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act 3/ or the National, Environmental Policy Act. b See also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.

l 490 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972); Association of Data Pr$ cessing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970).

l " Abstract cot:cerns" or a " mere academic interest" in the matter l

l which are not accompanied by some real impact on a petitioner will not i

confer stanc'in g . See, in the Matter of Ten Applications for, Low-En-

,riged Uranium, Lxperts to EUR ATO&l Member Nations, CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977); Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, supra, 4 NRC at 613. Rath-er, the asserted harm must have some particular effect on a petitioner.

Ten Applications, CLI-77-24, supra, and a petitioner must have some i direct stake in the outccmo of the proceeding. See _ Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station).

ALA13-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).

B. Evaluation of, FOE's Petition,

! FOE's petition fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention in l

thr.t it does nct cor.tain the requisite demonstration of compliance with 10 C.F.l!. $ 2.714 by establishing interest, how that interest may be af-fected and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the pro-

! ceeding that FOE wishes to pursue.

l FOE has not demonstrated that it will suffer any injury to itself as an organization or to Mr. Anthony specifically as a result of the amend-3/ 42 U.S.C. 5 2011 et seq.

4/ 4 2 U . S .C . 6 .43 21 e,t, seq.

l.

ment. Nor is it cpparent from FOE's petition that it has any basis for a claim th,at it will suffer cognizable injury as an organization if the re-quested amendment is granted. 5_/ FO E's one page amended petition advises that it has been studying the Limerick plant for over six years e.nd raising scfety concerns for over four years. FOE's then alleges in broad general terms that the plant is generally unsafe and the granting of the amendraent will add to the unidentified unsafe aspects of the plant.

Arended Petition at t 2. Next, FOE concludes without any record or reference support, that the ultimt.te consequence of granting the amend-ncnt is a meltdown at the plant. Amended Petition at t 3.

FOE's one page initial petition, dated January 30, 1986, and included by reference in its amended petition is equally defective. It fails to en-tablish FOE's interest, how that interest may be affected by the amend-ment or what aspects it wishes to pursue relevant to the amendment.

FOE's initial petition attaches page 12 of Volume One of a multi-volume study conducted by Torrey Pines Technology in November 1984 in connec-tion with the Licensee's independent Design Verification Program, which focused on, in_teg alin, the effects on the instrumentation lines of whip-ping pipes that had experienced a rupture. FOE states that it intends to

~ . .

5] No effort is made by petitioner to identify members of the orCaniza-tien who authorize FOE to represent them in this proceeding and who also may have standing to participate. The fact that FOE has been admitted ir, cther proceedings concerning Limerick does not excuse

. Its failure to demonstrate that the requirements for intervention are met for thin proceedinC. Its prior participation in a Limerick pro-ceeding is not sufficient to establish its interest with regard to a separato proceeding for the same facility. See, Philcdelphia Electric Co. (Peach Dottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LDP-75-22, 1 NRC 451, 454-55 (1975); Visconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LDP-73-26, 6 AEC 612, 616 (1973).

. question Licensee on this report in the hearing held on the amendment, however, no effort is made to establish a nexus with the amendment.

Staff no es that the subject of Amendment No.1 is with respect to sur-veillance' tects which would be conducted periodically to determine whether the excess flow check valves will respond functionally to check the flow of flula in the instrumentation lines upon being subjected to excessive differential pressure across the valve. The scheduling of such tests, whether performed more or less frequently, would have no effect on whether the instrumentation lines or the systems supported by such in-strumentatici lines were adequately designed to withstand the effects of ruptured whippint; pipes. This latter issue was the subject of the Staff's revier cf an independent design verification progran issue and was found to be resolved r.s stated in Supplement No. 4 to the Limerick Safety Eval-untion P.eport, at Section 3.6.::, (.5. lay litSS).

In view of the foregoing, it is clear to the NRC stiff that FOE is attempting to liti C ate - once a gain , the safety aspects of the Limerick nuclear unit. However, as FOE is well aware, those safety issues have been litigated cnd decided by the Limerick Licensing Board in favor of the Liccnsen, effirmed on appeal to the Appeal Board ( ALAB-919) ar.d are

. now pending Commission review. In sum, the time to question the safety design aspects of the pipes in question in an evidentiary hearing has passed and FOE's efforts to relitigate those issues as well as its efforts to gain status as an intervenor in this amendment proceeding because of those past safety issues should be denied.

FOE's allegations that the amendment when added to the other un-identified unsafe aspects of the Limerick plant could force Mr Anthony to move from the area with the resulting social and financial loss or if he

.-. -. .. .. . - - - . . . ~ . . - - .- - _ . - . _ -

O-

-S-stays in the area he will be subject to continuing rate hikes to pay for Limerick are also insufficient to establish injury to its interests.

Tennesse,e, Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant , Units 1 and 2),

i .*

i ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1420 (1977); Portland General Electric Company 4

i (Pobble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 1 b

] 613-615 (1976). Finally, FOE's bald, unsupported assertions about plant meltdcmn ( Amended Pctition at T 3) and release of radioactive poisons to

]

i the envircnment (Initial Petition) are insufficient to establish any injury 4 in fact to FOE cr how the one-time schedular amendment presents a spe-cific aspect upon which FOE should be permitted to intervene. Indeed, 1

^

as noted earlier herein at pages 2-3, and 7-8 the NRC staff's analyses of j

the wendment and FOE's allegations is to the contrary. 6/

, IV . CONCLUSION As discussed above, FOE's initial and amended petitions to intervene F'

and request for a hct. ring fails to meet the standards for intervention in

' an amendment proceeding and should be denied.

Respectfully suhnitted,

$ // [ */g

q9. 9:,,,i,.s.

njamin !!. Vogler l

Counsel for 13tC Staff

) Latcd at Pethesda, h ryland i this 25th day of February, 1986

~6/

Staff notes that the Licensee's Answer in Opposition to FOE's Peti-tions, filed February 19, 1986, stresses the fact that FOE's petition

{ is late. Because FOE's petition is inadequate and fails to meet the j basic requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(2), the NRC staff does "

not believe that the Board need consider thir, argument.

1 f

DOLMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Nt' CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .gg pg 26 p3:15

., BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD go b *1U BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

PillLADELPillA Fl.ECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) trete (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CI'RTIFIC_ ATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO PI TITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY ANTliONY /FOF R EG ARDING LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class , or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 25th day of Februarf,1986:

Ivan h. Smith, Chairman (2) Mr. Eduard G. Bauer, Jr.

Administrative Judge Vice President t General Counsel Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulator" Commission 2301 Market Street

%shington, D.C. 20555' Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nucicar P.egulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.h.

Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20006 Nr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Administrative Judge 0504 Bradford Terrace Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Philadelphia, PA 19149 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Joseph !!. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Renano Ardmore, PA 19003 Air and Yater Pollution Patrol 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

Ms. Maureen Mulligan 1500 Municipal Services Bldg.

Limerick Ecology Action 15th and JFK Blvd.

70: Queen Street Philadelphia, PA 1910" Pottstown, PA 19464

Thomas Gerusky, Director Barry M. Ilartman Bureau of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Flow, Fulton Bank Building 300 N. 2nd Street Third and Locust Streets  !!arrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, P A 17120 Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Director Associate General Counsel Pennsylvania Emergency ?'anagement Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency, Room 840 Basement, Transportation & Safety 500 C Street, S.W.

Building Washington, D.C. 20472 liarrisburg, PA 17120 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Robert L. Anthony Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers Friends cf the Earth of the 16th Floor Center Plaza Delaware Vallo; 101 North Broad Street 103 Vernen Lane, Box 186 Philadelphia, P A 19107 Moylan, PA 19065 James Wiggins Angus R. Love, Esq. Senior Resident inspector Montgomery County Legal Aid U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 107 East Main Street P.O. Box 47 Norristown, PA 19401 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Brose

• Post fotilo Board Panel 325 N.10 Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Easton, P A 16042 Washington, D.C. 20555*

David Wersan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Consumer Advocate Board Panel (5)

Office of Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1425 Strawberry Square War,hington , D.C. 20555*

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section Jay Gutierrez Office of the Secretary Regional Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission USNRC, Region 1 Washington, D.C . 20555*

631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Gregory Minor Mi!B Technical Associates Steven P. IIershey, Esq. 1723 Ilamilton Avenue Community Legal Services, Inc. San Jose, C A 95125 5219 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, P A 19135 Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 8 49 . C Echjamin 11. Vogler Counsel for NRC Staff