ML20207Q286
| ML20207Q286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1987 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Cole R, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Paskavitch J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2237 87-544-01-LA, 87-544-1-LA, LBP-87-2, OLA, NUDOCS 8701270124 | |
| Download: ML20207Q286 (7) | |
Text
2237 4
N('J'?
LBP-87-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'87 JAN 20 A10:1O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
$[
Before Administrative Judges Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Richard F. Cole SERVED JAN 201987
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-389-OLA
)
(Spent Fuel Transfer Amendment)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
)
_ET _AL.
)
ASLBP No. 87-544-01-LA
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2
)
January 16, 1987
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Hearing Request)
This proceeding involves the proposed amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-16, for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, to permit the transfer of spent fuel from the St. Lucie Plant, Unit I spent fuel pool to the Unit 2 spent fuel pool. The Applicants for the amendment are Florida Power and Light Co., Orlando Utilities Commission of the City of Orlando, Florida and Florida Municipal Power Agency (Applicants). The St. Lucie units are each pressurized water reactors located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The fuel handling buildings of the two units, between which spent fuel would be transported, are approximately 300 feet apart.
1.
As set forth in our Memorandum and Order (Regarding Request for Hearing), dated December 9,1986 (unpublished), a timely request for a 8701270124 870116 PDR ADOCK 05000389 o
PDR n0V
v
/
2 hearing was filed by John Paskavitch. That request, however, was
" patently deficient." It was a one sentence request which identified neither Mr. Paskavitch's interest in the proceeding nor the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which he wished to intervene.
Notwithstanding those deficiencies, and in accord with the NRC Rules of Practice, we provided Mr. Paskavitch an opportunity to amend his petition. We stated that an amended petition should set forth "with particularity [Mr. Paskavitch's] interest in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the specific aspect (s) of the proceeding as to which he wishes to intervene." We specifically pointed out that Mr. Paskavitch's address in South Venice, Florida, as set forth on the letterhead of his intervention petition, although not in the petition itself, would not be sufficient to establish his interest, since South Venice (on the west coast of Florida) is apparently more than 100 miles from the plant site (near the east coast of Florida). December 9,1986 Memorandum and Order, at 2.
We further stated that, absent a satisfactory amended petition, Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request would be dismissed.
i 1
i.
3 On Oe..;mber 10, 1986, Mr. Paskavitch filed a document entitled
" Petitioner's Reasons for a Request for Fearing."1 Treating this document as a supplemental or amended hearing request, the Applicants and NRC Staff filed responses, dated January 9,1987 and January 5, 1987, respectively. They each oppose the hearing request.
Mr. Paskavitch's supplemental request includes eight questions which he poses regarding the license amendment appifcation.
It contains no statement concerning his interest in the proceeding, other than an assertion that "a citizen has the right to intervene in the decision making process." The cover letter similarly refers to a " civic duty to help insure the safety of the United States nuclear power plant program."
In our view, Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request and supplemental request fail to satisfy the intervention requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a). Although we express no opinion as to their relevancy to the amendment, the eight questions may be deemed adequate to establish the i
l
" aspect (s)" of the proceeding as to which Mr. Paskavitch wishes to l
intervene. The statement of interest, however, remains inadequate. At best, it expresses a " ' generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens." That type of I
This document was initially filed with the Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel, who referred it to this Board. Mr. Paskavitch also forwarded a copy of this document to the Buard. Under the. schedule established by our December 9 Memorandum and Order, this document was timely filed.
l
i t
J 4
grievance "will not result in distinct and palpable harm sufficient to
)
support standing." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327, 333 (1983).
Although Mr. Paskavitch fails to meet the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. 1 2.714(a), we nevertheless could permit him to intervene as a matter of discretion, assuming he met the standards established by the Commission for such discretionary intervention. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27,'4 NRC 610, 614-17 (1976); Metropolitan Edison Co., supra, 18 NRC at 333.
N.. Paskavitch has not addressed the standards for discretionary intervention, just as he has failed to provide any information bearing upon his standing under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a).
In particular, he has failed to demonstrate how his participation would assist in developing a sound record in this proceeding.
In these circumstances, we decline to i
exercise our discretion to grant intervention to Mr. Paskavitch.
Accordingly, we are dismissing Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request for lack of standing.
2.
On December 16, 1986, the NRC Staff filed a response to a letter dated December 2,1986, written by Mr. Eric Buetens, supporting Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request.
(That letter was addressed to the NRC Resident Inspector at the St. Lucie plant and did not reach us until after we had received the Staff's response.) The Applicants, in responding to Mr. Paskavitch's supplemental request, indicated that they 2
were not responding to Mr. Buetens' letter because they did not regard it as a hearing request. The Staff also did not regard Mr. Buetens' i
- -.. _,, _, - _. -.,--, _ ~ _. _,, _,. - _
t
's 5
letter as a hearing request but claimed that, if considered as a hearing request, it is both inadequate and late-filed and should be denied.
We do not consider Mr. Buetens' letter to constitute a hearing request and hence take no action with regard to it. But we agree with the Staff that, if viewed as a hearing request, it is late-filed and fails to conform to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a).
3.
On December 9,1986, we wrote a letter to counsel for the NRC Staff and the Applicants which pointed to a potential deficiency in the matters submitted to NRC in support of the proposed amendment.
Specifically, we noted that the Staff's October 1981 Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 (NUREG-0843) stated that, because there was (at the time) no sharing of the spent fuel facilities between the two St. Lucie units, the requirements of General Design Criterion (GDC) 5 were not applicable. We stated that it appeared that GDC 5 would become applicable if the proposed amendment were to be approved. We also were unaware of any analysis by the Applicants of the facility's conformance to GDC 5 and indicated that such an analysis (and evaluation by the Staff) might constitute a legal requirement for the proposed amendment, as well as a consideration to be taken into account by the Staff in making a "no significant hazards consideration" finding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.92(c).
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have filed any response to the matters raised in our December 9,1986 letter--indeed, we requested no such responses. We also stated in our letter that we did not, intend at
t C
6 that time to raise the issue of the conformance of the facility to GDC 5 under our authority in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.760a.
We are still of the opinion that, as a predicate to the proposed amendment, the Applicants should submit an analysis of the facility's conformance to GDC 5 and the Staff should evaluate that analysis in its SER for the amendment. We are declining, however, to raise this issue pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.760a. We have no basis for finding, within the terms of that section, that "a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists." The deficiency we perceive is one of analysis and evaluation, not of safety. Moreover, we are not aware of any information which would suggest that the facility would fail to meet the requirements of GDC 5.
Nonetheless, conformance with NRC requirements is important. We leave it to the Staff to assure that the Applicants have complied with the requirements of GDC 5 in connection with this license amendment. We also note that, given our dismissal of the pending hearing request, and absent any other such request, the Staff will not be required to make the "no serious hazards consideration" finding of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.92(c).
l See 10 C.F.R. 6 50.91.
l For the foregoing reasons, it is, this 16th day of January,1987, ORDERED:
t
6 i
7 1.
The hearing request of John Paskavitch, dated November 6,1986, is dismissed.
2.
This proceeding is terminated.
3.
This Memorandum and Order shall become effective immediately and will constitute the final action of the Commission thirty (30) days after the date of its issuance, unless review is sought pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714a. Mr. Paskavitch may take an appeal from this Memorandum and Order to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, within ten (10) days after service hereof. The appeal shall be asserted by the filing of a notice of appeal and accompanying supporting brief. Any other party may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the appeal within ten (10) days after service of the appeal.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD sax $ $Au
,)
Charles Bechhoefer, Chajfman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l0 G tave'A. Linenberc/r, Jr.
INISTRATIVE J6 R b
(
Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of January,1987
. -