ML20236E035
| ML20236E035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1987 |
| From: | Rich C RICH, C. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E017 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 8710290034 | |
| Download: ML20236E035 (8) | |
Text
.
4 e
t September 30, 1987 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Secretary,
Earlier this month I was made aware by an article in The Stuart News of a request by Florida Power and Light to double the 1
amount of radioactive waste to be stored on-site at the St. Lucie I nuclear power plant. I ask that a public hearing be held concerning this request.
There are many areas of concern to the residents of this area.
These reactors are located on a barrier island and are prominently exposed to potential hurricanes.
Any danger, therefore, has the potential of being greatly magnified by a natural disaster. The original storage system was obviously designed for a specific, storage capacity. We would like to be sure that the increased storage would not endanger the integrity of the system and thus pose an unwarranted hazard. The population of this area has grown tremendously since the construction of these plants and will continue to do so for many years to come.
Is the NRC aware of this and does this affect any decision i
that will be made?
I What are the dangers of transferring this fuel and what evacuation measures are to be in place during this transfer period?
1 lias such a transfer occured at other sites? If so, what were the results?
G710290034 ${0 0 35 PDR ADOCK PDR G
1 I
s If this additional storage is granted, what does this imply for the future? Will this storage density become the new standard or is this only a temporary overloading of the system? Do other on-site storage facilities anywhere in the nation have a similar amount of t
radioactive material in storage? If so, what problems have occured and how have they been handled?
t These are just some of the general concerns of many of the local residents. There are other more technical concerns that need to be considered also. A public hearing would afford FP&L an opportunity to fully explain their position and to reassure residents of the i
safety of the proposed procedure and of the current, storage system.
Because of the time limitation in submitting this request only i
a few signatures could be obtained.
Given another thirty days I am confident many more signatures could be obtained.
l Yo rs truly, j
Ca pbell Rich i
j l
i We, the undersigned, are in agreement with the concerns expressed in l
the enclosed letter. We also ask that a public hearing be held concerning Florida Power and Light's request to double the amount of radioactive waste to be stored at Unit I of the St. Lucie Power Plant.
NAME ADDRESS DATE fl k.flA E kNd M,i<
l ?%M 2l7 2 N d.
O(fi [hR
/g 3,7d o 7 I luh@l.8
/l1 6
l1WlYfl}
pf/p7g;
% ' NI %1 g
vb( ) df U t% R dr\\. dk.
GS p a (\\)
f.-
IVH NT <.
s s.
f//CLA//Wft/sybl 9l3sk9 "G%&un et"C h"1 m/n
- N.\\
//
/
u t,
. &t ihu u
'b d 7 I V -
MXtid ado Qau.ca. Ta 9-R94'1 O$enukkm66 6'Of KL ho 7' 9 -h-97 S d Od$e w - d9c.si: Abt NfPf hb.<.A 'M
- N*N?
4 trc i
3U S ~l
- fy
' )
~f 4626 SE Pi/et-AA
/
% e+~
MfV$~
12au l t A s/a E %i2-"" 9/soA7 i
u
%S'c W> UW (bd -
_WA hk.u& Y).
!3G fE'?
1 3//0 AE.%ltetc%YLi/30/87 UdQ2.
i b.
L/AL Jen1a &A ff *l
[] f j
n D s'. E. t#hnnb s1. f Vr0
%4
!K < Ifrmo;.
4raRr nA. MN17
% 30 ? 7
}&
$I
$ 349o 9 -30'-8'7 r
/(b- @ ~(&
t"N32%
n -1>n daL &
C"f d M 9/ss/s, MORm Aa 7ndhva
%oh7 i
U
\\
l
4 32852 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.168 / hionday, August 31, 1987 / Notices Section. Land and Natural Resources Avenue NW., Washington. DC 20506.
Endowment for the Arts, Washington.
I Division of the Department of Justice.
A portion of this meeting will be open DC 20500, or call (202) 682-5433.
Roger ). Martulla, to the public on September 18,1987 from Yvonne M. Sabine, Acting Assistant Anorney General. Landand 1:00 p.m.- :00 p.m. The topics for NaturalResoutres Divisions, discussion willinclude guidelines and Acting Director. CouncdandPanel Operations, NotionalEndowmentfor the Arts.
femair$ lng sessions of this lFR Doc. 87-19881 Filed 8-28-87; 8:45 am)
PO meeting on September 16-17,1987 froin (FR Doc. 87-19911 Filed 6-2&-87; 8:45 amj 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and September 18l Drug Enforcement Administration 1987 from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. and 3:00 NUCLEAR REGULATORY Manufacturerof Controlled hfle on7e'vi w.In ccor ance COMMISSION pu ith Substances; Application;Ciba-Geigy the determination of the Chairman (Docket No. 50-335)
- Corp, published in the Federal Register of Pursuant to l 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of - February 13.1980, these sessions will be Consideration of issuance of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
closed to the public pursuant to Amendment to Facility Operating this is notice that on A,ugust 3,1987, subsection (c)(4). (6) and (9)(B) of License and Proposed No Significant Pharmaceuticals Division, Ciba.Ceigy section 552b of Title 5 United States Hazards; Consideration Determination Corporation. Regulatory Compliance Code' u need special accommodations and Opportunity for Hearing; Florida gg o Power and Light Co.
y SEF1030G,550 hforris Avenue, Summit.
New Jersey 07901, made application to due to a disability, piease contact the The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the Drug Enforcement Administration Office for Special Constituencies, Commission (the Commission)is -
(DEA) for registration as a bulk National Endowment for the Arts,1100 considering issuance of an amendment manufacturer of the Schedule 11 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington to Facility Operating License No. DRP-controlled substance hiethylphenidate DC 20500,202/882-5532,'ITY 202/682-67, issued to Florida Power and Light (1724b 5496 at least seven (7) days prior to the Company (the licensee), for operation of meeting.
the St. Lucie Plant. Unit No 1, located in Any other such applicant and any Funher information with reference to St. Lucie County, Florida.
Y o[e F to man facture uc s bst c S ne v ory ommit ee I'"*"'
'E fue E '
may file comments or objections to the Management Officer National i
issuance of the above application and Endowment for the dits, Washington
- storage capacity from 728 to 1700 fuel may also file a written request for a.
DC 20506, or call 202/682-5433-8mm 8
e Aposed expansW hearing thereon in accordance with 21 t be achieved by reracking the spent Ymme M. SabinS CFR 1301.54 and in the form prescribed fuel pool into two discrete regions. New, by 21 CFR 1316.47*
Acun#wtor.Counal ndPonel high. density storage racks will be.used.
Operations. NationalEndowmentfor the Arts.
The existing storage racks will be Any such comments, objections or August 25.1987, removed, cleaned of loose I 'a ea ng yb a ressed
]
(Mt Doc 87-mno Filed 8-28-87; 8.45 aml contamination, packaged and shipped
,p,y Drug Enforcement Administration, [
8"
1 United States Department of Justice
. Region 1 of the spent fuel poo'l 1405 I Street, NW., Washington, DC' Visua! Arts Advisory Panel; Meeting
" v "8
- total of 342 storage cel s.
e ce pitch ga 10.12 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (Room 1112), and must Pursuant to section10(a)(2) of the mches. All cells can be utilized for be filed no later than September 30, Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L storage and each cell can accept new
- 1987,92-463), as amended, notice is hereby fuel assembhes with enrichments up to Gene R. lfaislip, given that a meeting of the Visual Arts 4.5 weight percent U-235 or spent fuel e on 1
/ en fo I
Advisory Panel (Overview Section) to assemblies that have not achieved the National Council on the Arts will be adequate burnup for Region 2. Region 2 Adminisuction.
held on September 17-18,1987 from 0.00 includes 13 modules having a total of Dated: August 24.1987.
a m. - 5:30 p.m. In room M-14 of the 1364 storage cells.The cell pitch is 8.86 (FR Doc. 87-19M4 Filed 6-28-87; 8.45 aml Nancy Hanks Center,1100 Pennsylvania inches. All cells can be utilized for Avenue NW. Washington.DC 20500, storage and each cell can accept spent m em me.e This meeting will be open to the fuel assemblies with various initial public on a space available basis. The enrichments which have accumulated NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE tcpics of discussion willinclude minimum burnups. Each cellin each.
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES guidelines and other policy issues, region can accommodate a single If you need special accommodations Combustion Engineering or Advanced Music Advisory Panel; Meeting due to a disability, please contact the Nuclear Fuel Corporation (formerly Office of Special Constituencies, Exxon) PWR fuel assembly or Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the National Endowment for the Arts,1100 equivalent,..om either St. Lucie Unit 1.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washmgton or Unit 2.
L 92-163), as amended, notice is hereby DC 20506. 202/682/5532 TTY 202/682-The new racks are not'doubleliered t
given that a meeting of the Music 5490 at least seven (7) cays prior to the and all racks will sit on the spent fuel Advisory Panel (Jazz Presenters Section) meeting.
pool floor. The amendment application to the National Council on the Arts will Further information with reference to does not involve rod consolidation. The be held on September 16-18,1987 from this meeting can be obtained from Ms.
k.nof the pool will be maintained at less 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. in room 730 of the -
Yvonne M. Sabine. Advisory Committee than or equal to 0.95. Neutron absorbers Nancy Hanks Center.1100 Pennsylvania Management Officer National in the form of Doraflex will also be used
1 Federa: Register / Vol. 52. No.168 / Monday, August 31, 1987 / Notices 32853 for criticality control The rack vendor Accordingly, the proposed on administrative and Technical I
has licensed at least to other racks of modification does not involve a -
Specification controls which ensure that the same design.ne construction significant increase in the probability of minimum requirements for decay of process and analytical techniques an accident previously evaluated..
Irradiated fuel assemblies in the entire -
FPL evaluated the consequences of a spent fuel pool are met prior to.
remain substantially the aame as the spent fuel assembly drop in the spent movement of the cask into the cask ares previous 10 racks.Thus, mo new or fuel pool (scenario 1) and found that the of the spent fuelpool. Analyses also improved technology is utilized in the criticality acceptance criterion. K,nless demonstrate that k.awill always be less construction or analysis of the proposed than or equal to 0.95, is not violated. In than the NRC acceptance criterion. In j
This amendment was requested in the addition FPL found that the radiological addition [,] leakage from a cask drop will j
racks.
licensee's application dated June 12, consequences of a fuel assembly drop not exceed the makeup capabilities of '
are not changed from the previous the spent fuel pool.Thus, the I
The Commission has provided analysis.The NRC also conducted an consequences of a cask drop accident
- 1987, standards for determining whether a evaluation of the potential consequences will not increase from previously significant hazards consideration exists of a fuel handling accident. Both FPL evaluated accident [ analyses].
as stated in to CFR 50.92(c). A proposed and NRC analyses found that the The consequences of a construction
,)
amendment to an operating license for a calculated doses are less than10 CFR accident (scenario 5) are enveloped by i'
involves a significant hazards Part 100 guidelines.The results of an the spent fuel cask drop analysis facilitferation if operation of the facilityanalysis show that a dropped spent fuel previously performed by FPL,la in accordance with the proposed assembly on the racks will not distort addition, all movement of heavy loads consi d
amendment would not:(1) Involve a the racks such that they would not handled during the rerack operation will significant increase in the probability of perform their safety function.Thus, the comply with the NRC guidelines consequences of an accident previously consequences of this type accident are presented in NlfREG-0012. " Control of evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of not changed from the previously Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants."
1 a new or different kind of accident from evaluated spent fuel assembly drops The consequences of a construction any accident prevlorsly e saluated; or (3) which have been found acceptable by accident are not increased from j
involve a significant reduction in a the NRC.
previously evaluated accident. ~
4 The consequences of aloss of spent
[ analyse J.
margin of safety.
The licensee addressed the above fuel pool cooling system flow (scenario Therefore,it Is concluded that t!W three standards in the amendment
- 2) have been evaluated and it was found proposed amendment to replace'the i*
[f application as restated below, that sufficient time is availabe to spent fuel racks in the spent fuel pool i
(1) Involve a significant increase in provide an alternate means for cooling will not involve a significant increase in '
1 the probability or consequences of an (i.e., the fire hose stations)in the event the probability or consequences of an' '
accident previously evaluated.
of a failure in the coofing system.Thus, accident previously evaluated. 6
~
In the course of the analysis, FPL has the consequences of this type accident (2) Create the p'ossibility'of a new of considered the following potential are not significantly increased from different kind of accident from any' accident scenarios; previously evaluated loss of cooling accident previously evaluated."
- 1. A spent fuel assembly drop ln the system flow accidents.
FPL has evaluated the proposed The consequences of a seismic event ca0on M
th th'
- 2. Loss of spent fuel pool cooling (scenario 3) have been evaluated and
,9g t e NRb spent fuel pool, paper entitled,"OT Position for Review and "
[e' signed nd f's Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and icate o mee e
A s ismic event.
- 4. A spent fuel cask drop.
requirements of applicable portions of Handling Applications, appropriate
- 5. A construction accident.
the NRC Regulatohs. Guides and NRC Regulatory Guides, appropriate published standar The new free.
NRC Standard Review Plana, and The probability of any of the first four accidents is not affected by the racks standing racks are designed, as are the appropriate industry codes and themselves; thus the modification existing free-standing racks, so that the standards. In addition. FPL has cannot increase the probability of these floor loading from racks completely reviewed several previous NRC Safety accidents, As for the construction filled with spent fuel assemblies, Evaluation Reports for rerack j
accident. FPL does not intend to carry partially filled, or empty at the time of applications similar to (its] proposal. As any rock directly over the stored spent the incident, do not exceed the a result of this evaluation and these fuel assemblies. All work in the spent structural capability of the spent fuel reviews, FPL finds that the proposed fuel pool area will be controlled and pool.The Fuel Handling Building and modification does not,in any way, performed in strick accordance with spent fuel pool structure have been create the possibility of a new or specific written procedures.The crane evaluated for the increased loading from different kind of accident from any which will be used to bring the racks the spent fuel racks in accordance with accident previously evaluated for the St.
into the Fuelliandling Building has been the criteria previously evaluated by the Lucie spent fuel storage facility.
evaluated and meets the requirements of NRC and found acceptable. Thus, the (3) Involve a significant reduction in a Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0012. " Control consequences of a seismic event are not margin of safety (.l' of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power significantly increased from previously The NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Plants." In addition, the temporary evaluated events.
review process has establ!shed that the -
construction crane which will be used to The consequences of a spent fuel cask Issue of margin of safety, when applied move racks within the spent fuel pool drop (scenario 4) have been evaluated.
to a reracking modification, shoula area will meet the design, inspection.
The radiologicalconsequences of the.
testing, and operation requirements of cask drop are well within the guidelines address thyfollowing areas:
~.
- 1. Nuclear criticality considerations.
of 10 CFR 100 and the doses are not program provides for the safe handling increased as compared to the doses
- 2. Thermal-hydraulicconsiderations..
Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0012.This.
ab
( f heavy loads in the vicinity of the.
analyzed for the presently installed
- 3. Mechanical, material and structural t.
racks. The cask drop analysis is based considerations... +
4.-
spent fuel poolm
)
F.
32854 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. tea / Monday. August 31, 1987 / Notices i;. *
=~
The established acceptance criterion assemblies. The structural full. length strips of boradex will be 3
for criticality is that the neutron considerations of the new racks address placed between the cell walls and a i
multipllcation factor in spent fuel pools margins of safety against tiltir:g and stainless steel coverplate. In Region 2, shall be less than or equal t0 0.95, denection or movement, such that the full length boranex strips will be placed 6;
including all uncertainties, under all racks are not damaged during..mpact. In between the adjacent cell walls, conditions.This margin of safety has addition the spent fuel assembi es The licensee's specification for the been adhered to in the criticality remain intact and no criticahty concems handling and installation of the boraflex s
analysis methods for the new rack exista.Thus, the margins of safety are requires that it will not be installed in a design.
not significantly reduced by th s stretched condition. The specification The methods used in the criticality proposed rerack.
precludes the use of adhesives In the analysis conform with the applicable The staff has reviewed the licensee's attachtnent of the botanex to the rack portions of the appro'priate NRC no significant hazards consideration cell walls. FP&L will require that the guidance and industry codes, standards, determination analysis and agrees with manufacturing process avoid techniques and specifications. In meeting the their conclusions. However, the staff which could pinch the boradex. De acceptance criteria lor criticality in the believes that the licensee's no design of the racks requires that spent fuel pool, such that kon is always significant hazards consideration additionallengths of bornflex,i.e..
less than 0.95 including uncertainties at (NSHC) analysis could have been more greater than the active length of a fuel a 95%/95% probability confidence level, explicit in a number of areas.These assembly, be installed to account for the proposed amendment to rerack the areas are (1) pool water temperature anticipated shrinkage of the boraflex.
spent fuel pool does not involve a under normal and abnormal conditions, Based upon the above, the staff does not significant reduction in a margin of (2) recent boranex problems, and (3) envision that the proposed racks will safety for nuclear criticality, construction accidents, experience the boraflex cracking Conservative methods are used to The licensee states in the NSHC problems experienced elsewhere. Thus, calculate the maximum fuel temperature analysis that the safety evaluation the kmof the pool will be maintained and the increase in temperature of the shows that the existing spent fuel less than or equal to 0.95.
water in the spent fuel pool. The cooling system will maintain the bulk The most limiting construction thermal. hydraulic evaluation uses the pool water temperature at or below accident postulated for the spent fuel methods used for evaluations of the 150.8* F, and that a margin of safety pool by the licensee is a 25 ton cask present spent fuel tacks in exists such that the maximum allowable drop accident. nis is the most limiting demonstrating that temperature mstgins temperature of 217* Is not exceeded.
accident postulated at this time and it of safety are maintained.De proposed This statement addresses the abnormal will remain the most limited as a result modification will increase the heat load maximum heat load (full core unload) of the proposed rerack.This appears in the spent fuel pool. The evaluation case: the staff's Standard Review Plan reasonable because no existing rack or shows that the existing spent fuel (SRp) for full core unload calls for the proposed rack weighs rnore than 25 tons.
cooling system will maintain the bulk pool water temperature to be kept below In practice, the technical specifications pool water temperature at or below boiling. Thus, the licensee's analysis and prohibit any load in excess of 2 tons to 150.8* F. Thus a margin of safety exists results for this case meet the SRP. The be carried over irradiated fuelin the such that the maximum allowable licensee did not address the max 5num storage pool and also prohibit the cask temperature of 217' F is not exceeded normal heat load case in the NSHC crane from picking up any load over 25 for the calculated increase in pool heat analysis. The staff's review of the tons. Nevertheless, the licensee's load.The evaluation also shows that licensee's associated safety r valuation updated safety analysis report for Unit maximum local water temperatures concludes that the ma>dmur, normal No.1 analyzed this postulated accident along the hottest fuel assembly are well heat load case was also e' alu. ied. The in section 9.1.4, entitled " Fuel Handling below the nucleate boiling condition licensee calculated a muimum pool System." The licensee evaluated the values. %us, there is no significant water temperature of 1'23.3* F. The SRP radiological consequences of the reduction in the margin of safety for states that the pool s! ould be kept at or postulated accident. The licensee thermal. hydraulic or spent fuel cooling below 140* F in this case. Thus, the determined that the radiological
- concerns, licensee's analye!4 and results for this consequences were within 10 CFR Part The main safety function of the spent case meet tbc SRP.
100 guidelines. The licensee reevaluated fuel pool and the racks is to maintain The licen see's NSHC analysis did not the postulated 25 ton cask drop accident the spent fuel essemblies in a safe address the recent operational problems in the safety evaluation supporting the configuration through all normal or associated with boraflex, a neutron amendment request. This was necessary abnormalloadings, such as an absorbing material that is utilized in because the proposed amendment earthquake, impact due to a spent fuel many racks to maintain the k,aof the allows more spent fuel to be placed in cask drop, drop of a spent fuel poolless than or equal to 0 93. Although the spent fuel pool, the results are assembly, or drop of any other heavy some shrinkage of the boraflex is contained in Section 5.3.1.2. The results object. The mechanical. material, and assumed and accounted for, cracking of Indicate that the radiological structural design of the n:w opent fuel the boraflex and the forming of consequences remain within to CFR racks is in accordance with applicable significant axial gaps has not been Part 100 guidelines. The licensee also portions of the "NRC Position for postulated to occur. lt is believed that states that the proposed spent fuel pool Reviaw and Acceptance of Spent Fuel c acking occurred in some applications modifications do notincrease the
- Storage and Handling Applications,"
because of the rack design and radiological consequences of the cask dated April 14,1978, as modified fabrication process which did not allow drop accident previously evaluated.
January 18,1979; Standard Review Plan the boraflex to shrink without cracking.
Since the licensee's request to expand 3.8.4; and other applicable NRC
%e staff has reviewed the licensee's the St. Lucie i spent fuel storage pool guidance and industry codes. no rack associated safety evaluation with capacity satisfies the following -
materials used are compatible with the particular focus on the method that the conditions:(1) ne atorage expansion spent fuel pool and the spent fuel boraflex wdl be installed. In Region I, rnethod consists of replacing existing
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No.168 / Monday, August 31, 1987 / Notices 32855
^
racks with a design that allows closer proceeding must file a written petition the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 spacing between stored spent fuel for leave to intervene.
(NWPA),42 U.S.C.10154. Under section assemblies:(2) the storage expansion Request for a hearing and petitions for 134 of the NWPA. the Commission, at method does not involve rod leave to intervene shall be f!!cd in the request of any party to the consolidation or double tiering: (3) the accordance with the Commission's proceeding. is autheri:ed to use hybrid k.aof the poolis maintained less than or " Rules of Practice for Domestic hearing procedures with respect to "any equal to 0.95: and (4) no new technology Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
matter which the Commission or unproven technology is utilized in if a request for a hearing or petition for determines to be in controversy among either the construction process or the leave to intervene is filed by the above the parties." The hybrid procedures in analytical techniques necessary to date, the Commission or an Atomic section 134 provide for oral argument on justify the expansion, the Commission Safety and Licensing Board, designated matters in controversy. preceded by concludes that the request doe.s not by the Commission or by the Chairman discovery under the Commission's rules.
r
~
involve a significant hazards of the Atomic Safety and Licensing and the designation, following argument, j
consideration in that it: (1) does not Board Panel will rule on the request of only those factualissues that involve involve a significant increase in the and/or petition and the Secretary or the a genuine and substantial dispute.
probability or consequences of an designated Atomic Safety and Licensing together with any remaining questions J
accident previously evaluated, or (2)
Board willissue a notice of hearing or of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory I
does not create the possibility of a new an appropriate order, hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings or different kind of accident from any As required by to CFR 2.714, a are to be held on only those issues found accident previously evaluated, or (3) petition for leave to intervene shall set to meet the criteria of section 134 and does not involve a significant reduction forth with particularity the interest of set for hearing after oral argument.
In a rnargin of safety, the petitioner in the proceeding, and "Ite Commission's rules implementing Because the submittal and the above how that interest may be affected by the section 134 of the NWPA are found in 10 a
discussion by the licensee appear to results of the proceeding.The petition CFR Part 2. subpart K. " Hybrid Hearing l
demonstrate that the standards should specifically explain the reasons Procedures for Expansion of Spent I
specified in 10 CFR 50.92 are met, and why intervention should be permitted Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity at '
because reracking technology has been with particular reference to the Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors" well. developed and demonstrated, the following factors:(1)The nature of the (published et 50 FR 41662. October 15.
Commission proposes to determine that petitioner's right under the Act to be 1965) 10 CFR 2.1101 et seq. Under those operation of the facility in accordance made a party to the proceeding:(2) the rules, any party to the proceeding may with the proposed amendment does not nature ard extent of the petitioner's invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by l
I Involve a significant hazards property, financial, or other interest in filing with the presiding officer a written consideration.
the proceeding: and (3) the possible request for oral argument under to CFR l
The Commission is seeking public effect of any order which may be 2.1t09. To be timely, the request must be comments on this proposed entered in the proceeding on the filed within ten (10) days of an order determination. Any comments received petitioner's interest.The petition should granting a request for hearing or petition within 30 days after the date of also identify the specific aspect (s) of the to interve" (As outlined above, the publication of this notice will be subject matter of the proceeding as to Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 2, considered in making any final which petitioner wishes to intervene.
subpart G, and i 2.714 in particular, determination.The Commission will not Any person who has filed a petition for continue to govern the filing of requests normally make a final determination leave to intervene or who has been for a hearing or petitions to intervene, as unless it receives a request for a admitted as a party may amend the well as the admission of contentions).
hearing.
petition without requesting leave of the The presiding officer shall grant a timely Written comments may be submitted Board up to 15 days prior to the first request for oral argument. The presiding by mail to the Rules and Procedures prehearing conference scheduled in the officer may grant an untimely request Branch, Division of Rules and Records, proceeding but such an amended for oral argument only upon a showing Office of Administration,U.S. Nuclear petition must satisfy the specificity of good cause by the requesting party Regulatory Commission. Washington, requirements described above, for the failure to file on time and after DC 20555, and should cite the Not later than 15 days prior to the first providing the other parties an publication date and page number of prehearing conference scheduled in the opportunity ta respond to the untimely this Federal Registar notice. Written proceeding, a petitioner shall file a request. If the presiding officer grants a comments may also be delivered to supplement to the petition to intervene request for oral argument, any hearing Room 4000, Maryland National Bank which must include a list of the held on the application shall be l
Dailding. 7735 Old Georgetown Road, contentions which are sought to be conducted in accordance with the -
Dethesda, Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to litigated in the matter, and the bases for. hybrid hearing procedures. In essence.
5:00 p.m. Copies of written comments each contention set forth with those procedures limit the time available received may be examined at the NRC reasonable specificity. Contentions shall for discovery and require that an oral Public Document Room.1717 H Street, be limited to matters within the scope of argument be held to determine whether NW., Washington, DC.The filing of the amendments under conalderation. A any contentions must be resolved in an requests for hearing and petitions for petitioner who falls to file such a adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the leave to intervene is discussed below, supplement which satisfies these ;
proceeding requests oral argument. or if Dy September 30,1987 the licensee requirements with respect to at least one all untimely requests for oral argument may file a request for a hearing with contention will not be permitted to are denied, then the usual procedures in respect to issuance of the amendment to participate as a party..
10 CFR Part 2 subpart G applye j
the subject facility operating license and The Commission hereby provides <
Subject to the above requirements and l
t any person whose interest may be notice that this is a proceeding on an...
any limitations in the order granting l
affected by this proceeding and who application for a license amendment.
leave to intervene, those permitted to l
wishes to participate as a party in the falling within the scope of section 134 of intervene become parties to the,
f
.t u_
.o 32858 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.168 / Monday, August 31, 1987 / Notices i
l proceeding and have the opportunity to A copy of the petition should also be would modify the Unit 2 TS to allow the
(
i:
part41pate fully in the conduct of any sent to the Office of the General diesel generator two hour overload test hearing which is ha!d, including the CaneDethasda, U.S. Nuc! car ta b6 perfeo.d following the 22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> opportunity to present evidence and Regulatory Commission, Washington, continuous rating load test instead of i
cross examine witnesses at such DC. 20555. and to Harold F. Reis Esq., -
before 22 hout test as currently required.
hearing.
Newman a Holtzinger,1815 L Street.
The licensee's app!! cation for the is if a hearing is requested, the NW., Washington, DC 20036, attorney amendments was dated March 31,1986.
Commissi.: will make a final for the licensee.
Notice of consideration ofissuance of a
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The Nontimely filing of petitions for leave these amendments was published in the final determination will serve to decide to intervene, amended petitions.
Federal Register on June 18,1986 (51 FR when the hearing is held.
supplemental petitions and/or requests 22237). Other changes requested in that if the final determination is that the for hearing will not be entertained letter were approved in license amendment request involves no absent a determination by the amendments 147 and 83 dated August significant har.ards consideration, the Commission, the presiding officer or the 25.1987, to Facility Operating Licenses Commission may lasue the amendment Atomic Safety and Licensing Board DpR-57 and NPP-5.
and make it effective, notwithstanding designated to rule on the petition and/or The proposed change to extend from 2 the request for a hearing. Any hearing request, that the petitioner has made a hours to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> the time within which held would take place after 1:suance of substantial showing of good cause for one diesel generator must be returned to the amendment, the granting of a late petition and/or operable status when two diesel If the final determination is that the request. That determination will be generators are inoperable was found to based upon a balancing of the factors be unacceptable because it would leave deratYon, a he r gheld specified in to CFR 2.714(a)(1)(l).(v) and the nuclear unit inadequately protected zr o
would take place before the issuance of 2.74(d),
against a loss of offsite power for a 24 amendment.
For further details with respect to this hour period, and it is not in accordance enflormally, the Commission will not action, see the application for with the guidelines of Generic Letter 84-I Issue the amendment until the amendment dated June 12,1987, which 15 or the staff position on Generic issue expiration of the 30-day notice period.
Is available for public inspection at the B-56, llowever, should circumstances chan8e Commission's Public Document Room,
%e pmposed change to perform the during the notice period such that failure 1717 !{ Street, NW., Washington, DC, overload test prior to the 22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> to act in a timely way would result, for and at the Indian River Junior College continuous ratin load test was found to L
example,in derating or shutdown of the Library.3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort be unacceptable ecause it does not I!
facility, the Commission may issue the Pierce, Florida 33450.
conform with Regulatory Position C.14 li d
bf th fRe l e p ratio of the 3 da notice period.
Dated ameendaMaMand. We 25e day mesebatory Culde 1.9 Selection of enerate Set Capac fx August.1987.
Standby Power Supplies"an because it 1
ided th tit fl 1 d UI Ih t the amendmentinvo v For es Nuclest% Jatory Commission.
.t no does not accomplish the purpose of the j'
significant hazards consideration.ne flerbert N. Berkow, test which is to demonstrate the L
final determination will consider all Director, Project Directomte Il-2. Division of capability to immediately assume the public and State comments received.
Reactor Projects. ult.
full LOCA load and then carry the long-j,U Should the Commission take this action, 1
it will publish a notice ofissuance and (FR Doc. 87-19951 Filed 6-28-87; 8:45 s m.]
hour period.
8"C 8 7588-*M provide for opportunity for a hearing Accordingly the requests were denied.
I '
after lasuance. The Commission expects The licensee was notified of the that the need to take this action wilj Commission's denial of this request by
+
occur very infrequently, lDocket Nos.60-321 and 50-3641 letter dated.
l A request for a hearing or a petition By September 30,1987, the licensee
! i for leave to Intervene must be filed with Denial of Amendments to Facittty may demand a hearing with respect to
~
the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Operating t.lconses and Opportunity the dental described above and any Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for Hearing; Georgia Power Co. et al.
person whose interest may be affected Wahington, DC 20555 Attention:
by the proceeding may fue a written Docketing and Service Branch, or may The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory petition for leave to intervene, be delivered to the Commission's Public Commission (the Commission) has A request for a hearing or petition for Document Room,1717 H Street, NW.,
denied in part a request by the lleensee leave to intervene must be filed with the Washington. DC, by the above date.
for ' amendments to Facility Operating Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Where petitions are filed during the last Licenses Nos. DPR-67 and NpF-5, issued Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ten (10) days of the notice period,it is to the Georgia Power Company.
Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
requested that the petitioner promptly so Oglethorpe Power Corporation.
Docketing and Service Branch, or may inform the Commission by a toll. free Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia be delivered to the Commission'a Public telephone call to Western Union at (800) and City of Dalton, Georgia (the license) Document Room.1717 H Street,NW.,
325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-e700).
for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch -
Washington DC, by the above date.
The Western Union operator should be '
Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (the facility)
A copy of any petitions should also be given Datagram Identification Number located in App!!ng County, Georgia.
sent to the Offlee of General Counsel.
3737 and the following message The denied e' endments, as proposed Bethesda, U.S. Nu'elear Regulatory.
m addressed to Herbert Berkow; by the licensee, would modify the Unit 1 - Commission, Washington, DC. 20555 '
. Petitioner's name and telephone-and Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS)' and to Bruce WJChurchilltEsquire,I' '
nu:::ber: date petition was mailed; plant. to extend from 2 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the time -
Shaw; Pittmah,Ir tts'aiid Trowbridgef"3
~
o name: and publication date and page allowed to restore 'operablitty of one of.,
2300 N Street, NW.t. Wa'shington, pC.
number of this Federal Register notica.
twolnoperable diesel generators: and 20037, attorney forthe licensee.~ ' ' ' '
-