ML20082P161

Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Petitioners Have Demonstrated Right to Be Made Parties to Proceeding and Instant Petition for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted & Proposed Contention Admitted

ML20082P161
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/23/1991
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082P137	List: ML20082P161 ML20082P168
References
OLA-3, NUDOCS 9109100212
Download: ML20082P161 (10)

Text

~

.s - . -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CDU IED-Bofore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

-In-the Matter of ) g g 3 dj $3

)

Ti!E CLEVELAND ELECTRIC - ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-440-OLA-3

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) ) '

)

)

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST POR A HEARING LI. INTRODUCTION On September 14, 1990 the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 1 filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a-request for an, amendment to Appendix A of the operating license for the Perry. Nuclear-Power Plant. The requested amendment '

would revise the Technical Specifications to provide new reactor vessel. pressure-temperature limits, recalculated.using the formulas of Regulatory Guide-1.99, Revision 2.- On March 15,'1991, the Licensees filed a supplement-t.o this request which would remove from the Technical Specifications the Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program - Withdrawal I' Schedule .(Technical Specification Table 4.4.6.1.3-1, p. 3/4 4-22) and place this achedule in the Updated Safety Analysis

' Report ("USAR"), pursuant to Generic Letter 91-01, " Removal of thei Schedule'for the Withdrawal of Reactor Vessel Material A

4 9109100212 910827 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR 1 h

?

l Specimens from Technical Specifications," January 4, 1991.

l

The NRC published a " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of.

1 Amendment to Facility Opera' ting License and Proposed-No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" regarding this amendment request in the Federal Register on July 24,-1991. -56 Ped. Reg. 33950, 33961. Pursuant ,

to_this notice, the Atomic Energy Act .(Section 189a, 42 USC 2239) and the NRC's' Rules of Practice'(10 CPR 2.714),

peticioners Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. ("OCRE")

-and Susan L. Hiatt hereby_ request a hearing on this amendment request and-file this petition for leave to intervene in said

_ proceeding with the intention of becoming full parties.

II.- DESCRIPTION OP-PETITIONERS s

Petitioner OCRE is a private, nonprofit corporation organized under the laws'of the State of Ohio. OCRE t specializes in research and advocacy on issues of nuclear reactor. safety and has as its goal the promotion ~and

=

application of the highest standards.of safety to such facilities. OCRE was an interv'nor e in the operating license

_ proceeding;-for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Members of OCRE live and own property-within 15: miles of_ perry.

OCRE-has been authorized by at least one member to represent that member's interests in_this proceeding, pursuant l

t f ..

l

- - ,, .. ,.---,,---,,,.,-..m

, . - _ ... ..~.- . . - - - .- - _- -. _ _= - _ ..- - - . ..- -_..-. -

j to Houston Lighting and Power-(South Texas Project,. Units 1 and 1 2),1ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644 (1979). See Affidavit of Susan L. ,

Hiatt. j i

The-interests of petitioner Susan L. Hiatt are set forth in the attached Affidavit of Susan L. lif att. -!

' f I

III. NATURE OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT UNDER TiiE' ATOMIC ENERGY ACT i r

TO BE MADE A PARTY TO T!!E PROCEEDING i

Petitioners' right to be made a party to this-proceeding-is grounded in Section 189a of the Atomic Energy-Act, which _

f f

states that "(1)n any proceeding under this Act for the j i

granting, suspending, revoking, or amending any license or  !

construction. permit . . . the Commission-shall; grant a hearing _ j upon the request of any- person whose interest may'be affected )

I by.the proceeding, and_shall admit any such person as a party .j to such proceeding." 42 USC 2239a. Included in the NRC's i

definition'~ff" o person" is a corporation, such as OCRE. 10 CPR j

. -~ - _

+

2. 4 (o) . _

IV. NATURE AND EXTENT 13P PETITIONERS' INTEREST IN THE t 1 PROCEEDING {

i

[

-As noted above, Susan L. '

Hiatt'and- members of OCRE reside  !

P s l

Land own property within-15 miles of the Perry; Nuclear Power .

i

.l l

i l

L  :

t t

t

-, , , . . . - , ,n ,

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

J i

Plant. -

Petitioners have a definite. interest in-the e

preservation of their_ lives, their physical health,:their t

livelihoods, the value of their property, a safe and healthy

[

natural environment, and the cultural, historical, and economic f i

resources of Northeast Ohio. Petitioners also have an interest _!

t in preserving their legal rights to meaningful part'icipation in I matters affecting the operation of the Perry Nuclear Power.

' Plant which-may impact these above-mentioned interests.

- V .' EFFECT OF ANY ORDER IN THIS PROCEEDING ON PETITIONERS' _

INTEREST-I Sh'ould the requested amendment bc; granted, Petitioners will have no legal mechanism'for participating in changes in .

t

- reactor vessel material specimen withdrawal schedules, as such i changes will no longer be considered operating license

- amendments subject to the notice and hearing requirements of -

[

i the Atomic Energy Act,  :

I l

I- i

, - VI. . SUBJECT. MATTER OF PROCEEDING AS TO WHICH PETITIONERS WISH~ j TO INTERVENE l;

Petitioners-intendIto raise one issue-of-law: that the  :

t

, i L proposed amendment violates Section 189a of the Atomic Energy [

f Act._ Petitioners are only challenging:the portion of this  !

i

_4 i

I i

i

-r e m- w v --',---+r -

rw---< me - ,, "w--- c---- - - - **ei ~+vv -- -wew

I amendment which would remove the reactor vessel _ material h t

l specimen withdrawal schedule from the Technical Specifications;

' I they are not challenging the revisions to the reactor vessel  !

t

_ pressure-temperature limits. '

Petitioners' agree with the Licensee and NRC Staff that t this portionfof the proposed = amendment is purely an administrative matter which involves no significant hazards g considerations. i Since Petitioners' contention will raise a pure issue of l t

t law,-the outcome of'this proceeding should be determined on the  !

I basis of briefs or oral argument, pursuant to 10 CPR 2,714 (e) . -j l

'The contention and its bases are set forth herein. l Petitioners propose that the following contention be admitted j i

to this proceeding: '

i I

i l -

j .The_ Licensee's proposed amendment to remove the reactor vessel  !

material specimen withdrawal _ schedule from_the plant Technical I

_. Specifications to the Updated-Safety Analysis Report violates j Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2239a)-in that it t

_ deprives members of_the public of the right to notice and  :

'I E

opportunity for hearing on any changes to the withdrawal schedule. l l

10 CFR 2. 714 (b) (2) ' requires petitioners to set forth the l

i l_- _following information when' filing a contention

-(i) a brief. l

.i explanation of the bases of the contention; (ii) a-concise j

~

statement of the alleged facts supporting the contention; and. l (iii) sufficient information to show that a~ genuine dispute 1 i

_ exists with-the applicant.on a material issue of law or fact.  ;

i e  !

?

.5- -!

f i

f

+

-, - ,< ..-,-c,.,. - , - -,--.-.rn, . , .. , . , - . - - oam -,,,..-,n , n.,,- , - . , .--,n, -

wn, ,----,-,--,e. - ,

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

l 4 . I

.. j I

-t i

I 3

With the'-instant-contention, these factors are inextricably intertwined and therefore are addressed together below.

• l The reactor-vessel l material. specimen withdrawal schedule

{

subject to this amendment request have traditionally been part  !

of the Technical Specifications and could not be changed j y without_ notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for a j v

i hearing, as required by Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. j If this amendment'is-granted, the-Licensees will be able to

. change the: withdrawal schedule without any public notice or ,

opportunity for' participation. The NRC will still have to review amd approve any-revisions to the withdrawal schedule, as f,

^

required by 10' CFR 50 Appendix 11, Part II.B.3.; the-NRC's l t

. jurisdiction.and.cnforcement powers are not diminished by the  !

I

,- proposed amendment. The only real'effect of this amendment is  !

I that'the public-is excluded from the process, f

~

This is contrary to the intent of Congress and the

-interpretation of the-Atomic Energy Act by the Courts. Section -i t

i 189a of' the Atomic Energy Act states that' "(i) n any proceeding j under this Act for the granting, suspending, revoking, or ,

amendingfany license or construction permit

. . . the f l Commission shall: grant a_ hearing upon the request of any person'  ;

whosel interest may be affected'by the proceeding, and shall . i i

fadmit any such* person as a party to such proceeding." Operating

~

I clicense amendment proceedings u 1er the Act are formal, i

- on-the-record _ adjudicatory proceedings, conducted pursuant bo ,

l

_c_ l I

1

l o

l l

the !JRC's rules of-practice in 10 CPR Part 2, where the partica <

have_the opportunity to present evidence .*nd cross-examine l witnesses. Review of initial d'cisions is available within the

!JRC by the Commission. Judicial review of final orders in t opera'c'ng licence amendment proceedings is clearly established by statute.- Atomic Energy Act, Section 189bt Adlainistrative t

' Orders Review Act, 28 USC 2342(4).

The Atomic Energy Act reflects a strong Congressional

• intent to provide for manningful public participation.

"Congresa vested in the public, as wcIl as the 14RC Staff, a role in assuring safe operation of nuclear power plants." Snion of Concerned !;cient,istn v. fme, 735 P.2d 1437, 1447 (D.C. Cir.  ;

1984).

t

~

If this at. ument-is approvcJ, the only mechanism s milable for puolic. participation 10 through 10 CPR 2.206

. n iver, this option does not provide meaningful participation, nor doce it measure up to the type of proceeding affordud by Section 139a. This regulation permits any person to file a  ;

requent with the appropriate steff director seeking to-

..atitute a proceeding to suspend, revoke, or modify a ' license,- ,

'or foc any other action which mh be appropriate. 10 CPR 2.206 4

does not give the requester the right to a hearing, and simply  ;

filing a request under-section 2.206 does not give the ,

i requester the right to present evidence and cross-examine ],

t

' witnesses. There is no right under section 2.206 to appellate L

. 7_- t i  !

l l

t  ?

l I 1

a L f

i

. . t

. . l, review within the agency; while the Commiosion, at itu own

[

t discretion, may tuview a director's dociclon, petitionu for i review of same are not to be entertained. 10 CPR 2. 206 (c) . Au -j the D.C. Circuit has ruled, a 2.206 request in not a Section 109a proceeding. Union of Concerned ficientinto v. 1111c , 7 3 5 F.2d i

i 1437, 1443-4 (D.C. Cir. 1984). . i

!4out significantly, judicial review in not availablo for l

deniala of 2.206 petitions. OCim v . 14112, 8 9 3 P . 2d 14 04 (D.C.

t >

Cir. 1990); fla f o !!nergy Coalition of 14 3 ch i g a n v . tJi<C , 866 F.2d  !

1473 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ; it:now v. 1190, 868 P.2d 223 (7th Cir.

I 1989); 14a s sac hune tt s Public Interont Research Group v. tJac, 852 P.2d 9 (lat Cir. 1988). Thone decisionu huvo held that 2.206 ,

denials are not reviewablo becauce they are " committed to  ;

agency diacrotion by law." S USC 7 01 ( a ) ( 2 ) . Thiu provision of f l

the Administrativo Procedure Act was interpreted by the Supremo  !

l' Court in llockler v.'Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) , to include thoco agency actionu in which the governing statuto provided no ,

i meaningful standards for judicial review.

This amendment request violates the Atomic- 1:nergy Act in ,

that changeu to-the reactor vocyc1 material apecimen withdrawal

.schedulo, which the 14HC's regul'ations inake material by i requiring prior approval by the 11RC, will be do fanto licenso- .

amendments, but will not be formally labeled ao licenso amendmento and~ noticed as such in the Poderal.Regiutor with l I

opportunity for a hearing. lacenneca are trying to evade.the i

t 1

i

__.._._......._.,_______._.__....u_._.___.._..._,_,.-_._.._._.._,..._;_,,_,_._.__,_...._

f oht fo lavomer eht soifitsuj CRN eht ,10-19 rettoL cireneG nI

.tcA ygronE cimotA eht fo a981 noitcoG fo noitaloiv ni si ssol gnihtynA .gniraeh a tseuqer ot ytinutroppo dna ociton evah tsum etibup eht dna ,stnemdnema osnecil_otcaf tbI era yeht ,suhT

. ton dluoc osiwrohto yeht hcLhw nl syaw ni otarepo ot ytirohtua eht seesneciL ovig lliw ,CRN'oht yb lavorppa htiw ,eludehcs lawardhtiw nemiceps lairetam lessev rotcaer eht ot sognahC

.)2491( 614 ,704 .S.U

-613 ,setatS detinU .v .cnI ,metsyS gnitsacdaorB aibmuioC gnitic

" ,evisiced si'hcihw enod sah dna od otidotroprup sah noissimmoC eht tahw fo ocnatsbus eht si-ti rof ,ovisulcnoc ylirassecen ton s

si noissimmoC eht yb )noitca sti( nopu decalp lebal ralucitrap eht" :)9891 .riC ts1( 1251 ,6151 d2.P 878 ,CRN .v sttesuhcasaaM fo htlaewnommoC osla eeS- .)3891( 49l1 .S.U 534 ,sdnuorg rehto no detacav ,)0891( 197 ,087 d2.F-156 ,CRN .v yllohS-

.tcA ygrenE cimotA eht'fo gninaem eht nihtiw tnomdnema osnecil a si ytirohtua osnecil gnitsixe eht rednu onod evah ton dluoc esiwrehto ti gnihtemos od ot ytirohtua eht oosnecil a stnarg hcihw noitce na ,dloh sah tiucriC .C.D eht sA .stnemdnema sa delebai.ylticilpxo snoitca esoht rof sa llew sa stnemdnema osnecil otcaf gJ no gniraeh rof ytinutroppo dna ociton seriuqer a981 noitceS .dedavo ylisae os eb tonnac wal eht ,revewotI

.tcA eht fo snoisivorp gniraeh dna eciton eht gnikovni diova ot eman rehtona yb stnemdnema esoht gnillac yb tcA ygrenE cimotA eht fo etadnam raelc

- - , .. .,.,7-_.;. - . _ . . . , - . ~ _ . - - - . _ , . . - . -

withdrawal schedule from the Technical Specifications as uliminating an unneconcary duplication of controlu which aru outablished through 10 CPR 50 Appendix 11. Ilowever, the D.C.

Circuit has addressed the question of whether the tiltC rnay eliminate public participation on a taaterial iauuo in thu interest of making the process recre ef ficient. Thu+ Court held that it may not.

_ Union of Concerned Scienticta v. flitC, 735 P.2d at 1444-1447.

Petitioner 0 ask the Liconning Iloard to lacuu declaratory.

and injunctive relief by declaring the proposed amendment to be in violation of the Atomic Energy Act and by denying the amendment request.

VII. CONCLUSloti For the foregoing reauona, Petitioners-have demonstrated their right to be mado partion to this proceeding, and the instant petition for leave to intervono should be granted-and the proposed contention admitted.

Iteupectf ully submittod, Susan L. liiatt Petitioner Pro h , and OCllE 1(oprosentativa 8275 Munson Road Mentor , 011 44060 (216) 255-3158 DATI:D: 8M/ j I