ML20114E643

Gpun Answer Opposing Request for Hearing & Petition for Intervention of Nuclear Info & Resource Svc,Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch & Citizens Awareness Network.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 960624

ML20114E643
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	06/21/1996
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#296-17710 96-717-02-OLA, 96-717-2-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9606260129
Download: ML20114E643 (23)

Text

4

, e /77/O

.e DOCKETED USHRC June 21,1996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '96 JUN 24 A11:05 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDOCKEiliG & SERVICE BRAHCH In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-219-OLA GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B)

)

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) ) ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OLA GPUN'S ANSWER OPPOSING REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR INTERVENTION OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE, OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR WATCH. AND CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK GPU Nuclear Corporation ("GPUN" or " Licensee") submits this Answer opposing the Nuclear Information and Resource Service ("NIRS"), Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch ("OCNW"),

and Citizens Awareness Network ("CAN") request for hearing and petition for intervention on an amendment to Technical Specification 5.3.1.B of the operating license for the Oyster Creek Nu-clear Generating Station (" Oyster Creek"). While petitioners claim standing as the representa-tives of a number of persons who have authorized this intervention, none of the individuals has demonstrated that he or she will be injured by this minor amendment, and therefore both the indi-viduals and the petitioners lack standing to intervene in this proceeding as a matter of right. The petitioners should also be denied discretionary intervention because they have not demonstrated that they will make a contribution to a hearing or otherwise satisfied the standards for discretion-ary intervention.

9606760129 960621 PDR ADOCK 05000219 Q PDR .

f

I i ',

I. INTRODUCTION This license amendment request involves a very narrow change to the Technical Specifi-l l cations for Oyster Creek to allow the movement of a shield plug over a loaded dry shielded can-ister ("DSC") in the Oyster r n spent fuel pool. Currently, Oyster Creek's Technical l Specification 5.3.1.B allows only loads equal to or less than a fuel assembly to be handled over l

spent fuel in the fuel pool. While this technical specification was intended to prohibit movement of heavy loads over spent fuel stored in racks in the spent fuel pool, and was never intended to apply to fuel in a storage or shipping cask,2 the technical specification could be read literally as l

precluding placement of the shield plug on the loaded DSC while the DSC remains in the pool.

GPUN has submitted the current amendment request solely to eliminate this potential ambiguity.

Oyster Creek currently holds a general license, under 10 C.F.R. { 72.210, for the dry stor- 1 l

age of spent fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("lSFSI") at Oyster Creek. I Dry storage is necessary to provide additional storage space in the spent fuel pool. As described in the Safety Analysis Report for Oyster Creek's dry storage system (the Standardized NUHOMS l t Horizontal Modular Storage System), part of the operation of transferring spent fuel from the re-l actor building to dry storage is the loading of the DSC with spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool. To reduce doses to occupational workers, the storage system design uses a metal  !

I

'E Indeed, transpcatation casks of spent fuel have been loaded and sealed in the Oyster Creek spent fuel pool us-ing a top shielding lid with a function, size, and weight analogous to the DSC shield plug. These previous cask  ;

loadings were done under the current Technical Specification which was viewed as not applicable. Similarly, trans.

portation and storage casks have been loaded and closed at other plants with similar technical specifications which i wcre interpreted as being inapplicable.

l l i

1 4

l  :

i h

I i

1_ ,_ _ _ _ . _ , _ - . - - _ _ _ . -- -- - - - - -

4 I

sfield plug above the assemblies and below the top lid of the DSC. This shield plug is inserted in;o the canister after the assemblies are loaded into the DSC and before it has been removed from the spent fuel pool in order to take full advantage of the water shielding.

This narrow amendment only addresses the moving of one shield plug over a limited numbersofcooledE spent fuel assemblies that are inside the DSC, inside the transfer cask, inside the cask drop protection system ("CDPS"),E under 20 feet of water inside the spent fuel pool, and inside the reactor building. This license amendment request does not request authority to move -

i any other heavy loads at Oyster Creek. Other heavy load issues, such as the movement of the spent fuel transfer cask, are not included in this application and are beyond the scope of this request.

At the time this amendment would take effect, the cask itself would already be in the pool and the spent fuel assembly handling would already be completed. If the shield plug is dropped, l

I 2

The canister can only hold a maximum of 52 fuel assemblies. Certificate of Compliance for Dry Spent Fuel Storage Casks (Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel), Package Number USAn2-1004 at A-10 (1995).

8 The canister design Certificate of Compliance requires that only spent fuel cooled five years or more can be loaded in the canister. Certificate of Compliance at A-10. In fact, the spent fuel that GPUN intends to place in the DSC has cooled at least 10 years.

• The cask drop protection system (CDPS) is a series of steel funnels forming a cylinder which isolates the cask from the rest of the pool and mitigates the effect of any drop. A plate attached to the bottom of the cask acts as a pis-ton within this cylinder. The effectiveness of this system is included in Oyster Creek's safety analysis report, which shows that with this system Oyster Creek's spent fuel pool can withstand a drop of a 100-ton cask. Oyster Creek Updated FSAR at {l 9.1.2.2.3 and 9.1.2.3.10.

3

it will fall within the CDPS, and will not fall in the spent fuel storage area of the fuel pool.2 In any event, a drop of the shield plug is not a credible event because the shield plug is supported at all times in the pool by four steel cables bolted at four separate locations to the shield plug and at i

four separate locations on the transfer cask lifting yoke', and each of these cables is independ-ently capable of supporting the shield plug.2 Thus, there is no reasonable possibility that the shield plug could be dropped as a result of mis-rigging, or as a result of rigging failure absent multiple independent failures. Further, the overall capacity of the crane (100 tons) far exceeds the weight of the shield plug and lifting devices (7 tons).E I II. BACKGROUND On May 8,1996, notice was published in the Federal Register of GPUN's application to amend Specification 5.3.1.B of the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications. 61 Fed. Reg. 20,842, 20,848 (1996). The amendment will explicitly allow the shield plug and associated lifting hard-ware to be moved over the irradiated spent fuel that has been loaded into the DSC within the i

transfer cask located in the CDPS. The Federal Register notice proposed a finding of no J Mechanical rail stops are installed to prevent travel of the crane outside the analyzed load path over the CDPS.

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specification Change Request (" Tech. Spec. Change Reques'")

No. 244 at 111 (Apr.15,1996).

Eyebolts are used as the cable attachment points for both the shield plug and the lifting yoke. Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Revision 3 A at 4.2-24, 5.1-4 (1995).

I 2

The steel cable assemblies are redundant and each of the four has suflicient capacity to support the total weight i of the shield plug. Tech. Spec. Change Request at III.

l L

The shield plug weighs approximately 4 tons and the lifting yoke weighs approximately 3.1 tons. Id.  !

n. 1 I

i l

significant hazards consideration and afforded interested parties until June 7,1996 to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene. Ii at 20,842. ' On June 6,1996, NIRS, OCNW, and

)

CAN filed a Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene (" Petition").

I The Commission's requirements for a petition for leave to intervene are set forth in 10 I

'i C.F.R. 2.714 and the Federal Register notice for the application. The petition must state:

I (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a l party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's l

property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the >

possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding j on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the l specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to l which petitioner wishes to intervene.

l l

61 Fed. Reg. at 20,843.

The Commission has held that it will apply "' contemporaneous judicial concepts' of standing to determine whether a petitioner has a sufficient interest in a procceding to be entitled to intervene as a matter of right." Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21,30 N.R.C. 325,329 (1989), sning Portland General Electric Co. (Peb-ble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27,4 N.R.C. 610,614 (1976). Judicial con-cepts of standing require the petitioner to make a showing that "(a) the action will cause ' injury in fact,' and (b) the injury is arguably within the ' zone ofinterests' protected by the statutes govem-ing that proceeding [the Atomic Energy Act]." Metronolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nu-clear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-83-25,18 N.R.C. 327,332 (1983). Specifically, petitioners must establish (1) that they have personally suffered, or will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that 5-

constitutes injury-in-fact; (2) that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action; and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision granting the relief sought. Dd-1 lums v. NRC,863 F.2d 968,971 (D.C. Cir.1988); Lone Island Lichtine Co. (Shoreham Nuclear l l

Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7,33 N.R.C.179,185-86 (1991).

l An organization may derive standing from its members. To do so, however, the organi-l zation must demonstrate that the members who have authorized representation have the requisite personal interest in the matter,it that the members have or will suffer injury in fact causally re-lated to the license amendment.2'  !

l For license amendments that do not have a clear potential for offsite consequences affect-ing the general population, a person cannot establish standing based on geographic proximity alone. St. Lucie, CLI-89-21, supra, at 329-30; Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3), LBP-91-4,33 N.R.C.153,156-57 (1991); Lone Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-1,33 N.R.C.15,22 (1991).

Where there is no obvious potential for offsite consequences, a petitioner (or in the case of an or-ganization, its members) must allege some specific " injury in fact." St. Lucie, CLI-89-21, supra, 30 N.R.C. at 329.

• An organization may invoke representational standing v. hen (1) its members have standing in their own right; (2) the interests the organization seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the reFef requested requires the participation of the individual members. Hunt v. Washington State An-nie Advertising Comm'n. 4.12 U.S. 333,343 (1977). Sss alig Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535,9 N.R.C. 377,396-97 (1979).

l A petitioner who lacks standing may yet be permitted discretionary intervention. GPUN l i

submits, however, that discretionary standing cannot be granted to any of the petitioners unless at i l

least one of those petitioners is first determined to be entitled to a hearing (11 has standing and  !

has pleaded at least one admissible contention).m If the Board decides that a least one of the petitioners is entitled to a hearing and proceeds to consider whether discretionary intervention should be permitted for the others, the Board I should be guided by the following factors:

(a) Weighing in favor of allowing intervention- l (1) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may rea- .

sonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. l (2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.

(3) The possible effect of any otder which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

(b) Weighing against allowing intervention-(4) The availability of other means whereby petitioner's inter-est will be protected.

(5) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be repre-sented by existing parties.

• The concept of discretionary standing was developed in construction permit proceedings, where hearings are mandatory and a Licensing Board has substantive jurisdiction over all issues even in the absence ofintervention.

See generally Pebble Sorings. CLI-76-27. supra,4 N.R.C. at 616. In that setting, where a hearing is mandatory, a Licensing Board can certainly allow a party to participate despite the party's failure to meet formal standing require-ments. But in a license amendment proceeding, until the Board finds that a hearing has been requested by an inter-venor with standing and at least one admissible contention, the Board has no substantive jurisdiction - 11 no authority to proceed with a hearing.

(6) The extent to which petitioner's participation will inappro-priately broaden or delay the proceeding.

. Pebble Sptingc, CLI-76-27, suma,4 N.R.C. at 616.

The primary factor to be considered is the significance of the contribution that a petitioner might make. Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, suma,4 N.R.C. at 616. Thus, the foremost factor is whether the petitioner's intervention would produce a valuable contribution to the Board's deci-sion making process on a significant safety or environmental issue included in the proceeding at hand. Tennessee Vallev Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413,5 N R.C.

1418 (1977). The burden of convincing the Board that a petitioner could make a valuable contri-bution if allowed discretionary intervention lies with the petitioner Nuclear Engineering Co.. l h (Sheffield, Ill. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473,7 N.R.C. 737,745 ,

(1978). Factors to consider in determining petitioner's ability to provide a valuable contribution

to the record include:

(1) a petitioner's showing of significant ability to contribute on i substantial issues oflaw or fact which will not be otherwise prop- l erly raised or presented; (2) the specificity of such ability to contribute on those substantial issues oflaw or fact; (3) justification of time spent on considering the substantial issues oflaw or fact; (4) provision of additional testimony, particular expertise, or expen assistance; (5) specialized education or pertinent experience.

-g-

~ -

1 Quke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-1,13 N.R.C. 27,33 (1981)

, (and cases cited therein).

I 1 l

The fact that petitioner wishes to protect himself from adverse precedent in the subject i

l proceeding for use in mtervennon with respect to the same issue in another proceeding does not

! )

I give petitioner standing. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.. Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Power Station, Units 1,2 & 3), ALAB-304,3 N.R.C.1,4 (1976). See also Northeast Nuclear Energy l h (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-96-1,43 N.R.C.19,23 n.21 (1996). The al-t leged injury must be concrete and particularized, not " conjectural" or " hypothetical"; standing will be denied if the threat ofinjury is too speculative. Seouoyah Fuels Com. and General Atom- .

1 l

its (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12,40 N.R.C. 64,72 (1994). l 1

III. STANDING ON GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT

FOR THIS NARROW LICENSE AMENDMENT l

I As stated earlier, for license amendments that do not have a clear potential for offsite consequences affecting the general population, petitioners cannot establish standing based on j geographic proximity of their members alone. St. Lucie, CL1-89-21, supra,30 N.R.C. at l

329-30; Palo Verde, LBP-91-4, supra,33 N.R.C. at 156-57. Clearly, this is not the type of significant license amendment proceeding with such clear potential for offsite consequences as to

, warrant a presumption of standing based on proximity. For example, while spent fuel pool t

l expansion cases have typically been deemed significant enough to support a presumption of l

1 1 I

i

-9 e

4

l standing for those residing in close proximity to the plant,* the amendments in those proceed-ings involved obvious criticality considerations and revision to significant accident analyses in l l

the FSARs for the affected facilities. In contrast, the amendment to Technical Specification 5.3.1.B involves no criticality considerations or significant accident analyses.

As previously discussed, the subject license amendment addresses only the moving of one shield plug over a limited number of cooled spent fuel assemblies that are inside the DSC, inside the transfer cask, inside the CDPS, inside the spent fuel pool, and inside the reactor build- I l

ing. The shield plug handling in this amendment request does not implicate reactor safety in any

{

way. Nor is a spent fuel accident credible, given the redundancy of cables used to lift the shield l l plug. And even if the shield plug were somehow dropped, it would fall only within the CDPS, i

and can not fall in the spent fuel storage area of the fuel pool. Based on the extremely narrow W Sgt Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-522,9 N.R.C.

54 (1979); Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-88-10A,27 N.R.C. 452, affd on D.ther grounds, ALAB-893,27 N.R.C. 627 (1988); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro. (Vermont Yankee Nu-clear Power Station), LBP-87-7,25 N.R.C. I16,118, and LBP-87-17,25 N.R.C. 838,842, affd in put and try'd in can on o.ther grounds. ALAB-869,26 N.R.C 12, reconsid demed, ALAB-876,26 N.R.C. 277 (1987). Secahn l Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), LBP-80-4,11 N.R.C 117,120 (1980). Boston Edison Co.

l (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP 85-24,22 N.R.C. 97 (1985), aff.d on 01htt grounds, ALAB-816,22 N.R.C.

l 461 (1985). Even in these cases, there must be closer proximity than is required in initial licensing cases. In P.ih j grim, the Licensing Board held that 43 miles was insufficient to establish standing in an amendment to increase the criticality constant for the spent fuel pool, reasoning that:

This case concerns a request for a license amendment and it is not controlled by the same standing considerations that govern standing when an operating license is sought. Whatever the risk to the surrounding community from a reactor and its associated pool, the risk from the fuel pool alone is less and the distance of residence from the fuel pool for which standing would be appropriate would, ac-cordingly, be less. Consequently, we do not consider residence 43 miles from this plant to be adequate for standing.

2 22 N.R.C. at 99 (emphasis in original).

i l-i.

l scope of the amendment, the limited number of cooled fuel assemblies involved, its well under-stood consequences based on Applicant's experience handling analogous loads, and the extensive safety systems and barriers in pla:e to mitigate accidents for more significant than a drop of the l

shield plug, this amendment does not have a clear potential for offsite consequences affecting the general population.

Accordingly, petitioners may not establish standing based on geographic proximity of members alone, but rather must identify some specific injury-in-fact that will result from the ac-tion taken. The petitioners must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the ac-tion. Warth v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490,499 (1975). The threat ofinjury must be real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. Los Angeles v. Lvons,461 U.S. 95,101-03 (1983);

California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz,416 U.S. 21,69 (1974). Where there is no current injury and

a party relies wholly on the threat of future injury, the fact that one can imagine circumstances 1

where a party could be affected is not enough. The petitioner must demonstrate a realistic danger

- an injury that is certainly impending. Northwest Airlines Inc. v. FAA,795 F.2d 195,201 (D.C. Cir.1986).

IV. STANDING FOR NIRS SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE NIRS HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT PALPABLE INJURY-IN-FACT TO ESTABLISH STANDING

, NIRS has not alleged any palpable, panicularized injury-in-fact that is causally related to l

l

. the subject license amendment and suf ficient to demonstrate standing. NIRS bases its claim of

standing entirely on the representations of one affiant, William decamp, but his concems are J

1 i

I

largely unrelated to the specific amendment request and do not demonstrate a distinct and palpa-ble injury-in-fact causally related to amendment at issue.

Mr. decamp's affidavit expresses concerns relating to (1) containment failure due to a load drop st Oyster Creek and (2) a load drop at Oyster Creek causing a failure of the fuel pool cooling system leading to melted nuclear fuel. Aff. of decamp at 1. As discussed above, be-cause the narrow scope of this amendment is limited to whether the shield plug may be placed over spent fuel in a DSC (while it resides in a transfer cask in the CDPS), neither the fuel pool cooling system nor the reactor containment could be affected by this amendment. Mr. decamp's allegations relate to the broader issue of moving heavy loads in other parts of the containment building, which is beyond the scope of this amendment request and proceeding.

Mr. decamp also asserts that he is concerned that a load drop which releases radiation l

i from a fuel transfer canister could have adverse effects on his health and safety. Mr. decamp, however, provides no explanation how such a drop might occur, what multiple failures are neces-sary for such an accident to occur, what consequences might result from such an accident, or why such an accident would exceed the consequences of the numerous other accident scenarios evalu- ,

I ated in the FSAR for Oyster Creek and the SAR for its ISFSI. His assenion is vague and conjec- l tural, and certainly does not satisfy his burden of demonstrating a realistic danger.

Aside from the few assertions in Mr. decamp's affidavit, the petition itself contains some general allegations, but these too are insufficient to establish standing. Petitioners recite the generic factors for evaluating a no significant hazards consideration from 10 C.F.R. 50.92(c) as one basis for demonstrating injury-in-fact.2 Petition at 2, Such a generalized alle-gation is not sufficiently particularized to demonstrate standing. Seouovah Fuels, CLI-94-12, st-pra,40 N.R.C. at 72. Since none of allegations made by NIRS is sufficient to establish any palpable, particularized injury-in-fact directly related to this license amendment that is sufficient to demonstrate standing, NIRS should be denied intervention in this proceeding.

V. STANDING FOR OCNW SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE OCNW HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT PALPABLE INJURY-IN-FACT TO ESTABLISH STANDING OCNW also relies on the affidavit of Mr. decamp, and in addition, on the affidavits of three other persons.2 Like the affidavit of Mr. decamp, however, OCNW's additional affidavits relate mainly to concerns unrelated to the instant amendment and fail to demonstrate a distinct l and palpable injury causally related to this amendment.

C Petitioner states that; l

the proposed license amendment . . is inadequate to protect [ petitioner's] health and safety and the health of the environment in so much that it: 1) would increase the probability of an accident; 2) creates the j possibility of an accident not previously identified in the Safety Analysis Report and; 3) constitutes a sig-I nificant reduction in the margin of safety at operating boiling water reactors.

l Petition at 2. Comnare 10 C.F.R. f 50.92. The evaluation of no significant hazards consideration for this amendment request is outside the scope of this proceeding. Under the Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. Q 50.58(b)(6), a no significant hazards consideration determination, and therefore the timing of a hearing vis-a-vis the issuance of the license amendment, are up to the Staff and the Commission. Contentions on this matter will not be entenained by Licensing Boards. Sec, c.g., Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-26,33 N.R.C. 537,545 (1991) and LBP-9l-23,33 N.R.C. 430,442 (1991); Sacramento Mu-

! nicinal Uti!ity Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-91-17,33 N.R.C. 379,381 (1991); Ysr.-

) mont Yankee Nuclear Power Com. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6,31 N.R.C. 85,90-91

! (1990); Florida Power & Licht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-89-15,29 N.R.C. 493,499-500 (1989). I j n' It is not clear from the affidavits whether OCNW representatives Maria Szczech and Shirley R. Schmidt are, in l

fact, members of OCNW. Neither the affidavit of Ms. Szczech nor the affidavit of Ms. Schmidt states that the affi-  !

aat is a member of OCNW.

I 1

4 i

The affidavit of Jean Burnett alleges concern that: (1) moving heavy loads over the fuel pool and containment area during plant operation will affect her health and safety; (2) an accident .

- involving unstable strapping will affect her health and safety; and (3) the recent gas burn which jarred loose the cover of a canister at the Point Beach nuclear plant could have implications on safety at Oyster Creek. Aff. of Burnett at 1. The first allegation is a generalized statement that does not allege a particularized injury-in-fact. Further, this amendment proceeding involves only  !

1 i

moving the shield plug over the loaded DSC, and Ms. Burnett's broader concerns about loads '

over fuel in general and heavy loads in the containment area exceed this scope. The second alle-gation concerning unstable strapping is not applicable to this amendment request because the shield plug is supported by redundant eyebolts and steel cables, and will not use straps. The third

' allegation regarding the gas burn that occurred during the welding of a canister cover at Point Beach is not applicable to this amendment request because the narrow scope of this amendment includes only the movement of the shield plug over fuel in a DSC while it is under 20 feet of wa-ter; and issues of canister welding are beyond the scope of this amendment. Thus, the affidavit of Jean Burnett produces no palpable, particularized allegations ofinjury-in-fact sufficient to demonstrate standing.

The affidavit of Shirley R. Schmidt alleges: (1) reservations about Oyster Creek moving spent fuel rods over the fuel pool and (2) a distinct possibility of a containment failure should the 1 heavy load be dropped. Aff. of Schmidt at 1. The movement of spent fuel rods over the spent fuel pool is explicitly allowed under Technical Specification 5.3.1.B of Oyster Creek's current li-censing basis and, in any event, has no bearing on the instant amendment request. The second l

1 1

' l allegation, regarding containment failure, is beyond the scope of this amendment because the amendment only includes movement of the shield plug in the CDPS and does not raise any possi-bility of a containment failure. Thus, the affidavit of Shirley R. Schmidt produces no palpable, particularized allegations ofinjury-in-fact sufficient to demonstrate standing.  !

The affidavit of Maria Szczech alleges concern with: (1) the evacuation plan for the resi-dents of Ocean Township in the event of an accident, (2) the crane capacity for moving bundles of spent fuel rods over the fuel pool and containment, and (3) the intent to move fuel rods while

Oyster Creek is operating. Afr. of Szczech at 1-2. None of these allegations are related to the narrow scope of the subject amendment request to move the shield plug in the CDPS. The first allegation, relating to the evacuation plan for Oyster Creek, is beyond the scope of this amend-ment request. The second and third allegations relate to the handling of fuel assemblies over the spent fuel pool, an activity that is explicitly allowed under Technical Specification 5.3.1.B of Oyster Creek's current licensing basis and has no relationship to the requested amendment.

Thus, the affidavit of Maria Szczech produces no palpable, particularized allegations ofinjury-in-fact sufficient to demonstrate standing.

In sum, none of the allegations of OCNW in the petition or the four accompanying affida-l vits is sufficient to establish any palpable, particularized injury-in-fact directly related to this 11- '

cense amendment that is sufficient to demonstrate standing. Thus, petitioner OCNW should be denied intervention in this proceeding.

l

- 15.-

l

- ._. . . . . a

l 1

l VI. STANDING FOR CAN SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE CAN HAS NO MEMBER RESIDING NEAR OYSTER CREEK AND HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT PALPABLE INJURY-IN-FACT TO ESTABLISH STANDING CAN and its representative member are located in central Massachusetts, over 200 miles from Oyster Creek in central New Jersey. Even in an initial operating license proceeding, peti-l tioners located very far from a plant are generally denied standing. Philadelchia Electric Co.

(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A,15 N.R.C.1423,1447 (1982), citmg, Dairvland Power Coon. (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor), ALAB-497,8 N.R.C. 312,313 l

(1978); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397,5 N.R.C. I143, '

1150 (1977).

Further, CAN has not alleged any palpable, particularized injury-in-fact related to the subject license amendment that is sufficient to demonstrate standing. The affidavit of Deborah Katz, the representative member of CAN, expresses concems about: (1) the experimental trans-fer of fuel over the operating reactor vessel while the reactor is operational, and (2) fuel handling accidents at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (" Vermont Yankee"). Aff. of Katz at 1.

The first allegation, relating to handling fuel at Oyster Creek, is beyond the scope of this narrow '

I amendment which addresses only the movement of the shield plug in the CDPS. The second al- 1 l

legation, relating to handling of fuel at Vermont Yankee, is beyond the scope of this amendment because is relates to a different reactor located over 200 miles away. l Ms. Katz also alleges that the precedent set by the process at Oyster Creek will have a di-rect effect on her. The potential for establishing adverse legal precedent is not a legitimate injury )

l

sufficient to establish standing. The fact that petitioner wishes to protect herself from adverse precedent in the subject proceeding for use in intervention with respect to the same issue in an-other proceeding does not give petitioner standing. Indian Point, ALAB-304, spra,3 N.R.C. at 4; see Millstone, LBP-96-1, supra. 43 N.R.C. at 23 n.21. The alleged injury must be concrete and particularized, not " conjectural" or " hypothetical"; standing will be denied if the threat ofin-jury is too speculative. Seauoyah Fuels, CLI-94-12, supra,40 N.R.C. at 72.

In sum, neither the factual allegations nor the adverse legal precedent allegations made by Ms. Katz are sufficient to establish any palpable, particularized injury-in-fact directly related to this license amendment that is sufficient to demonstrate standing. Thus, CAN should be denied intervention in this proceeding.

VII. DISCRETIONARY INTERVENTION FOR CAN SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED  ;

BECAUSE CAN HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IT WOULD BRING A  !

VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE BOARD'S DECISION MAKING  ;

PROCESS IN THIS MATTER l Petitioner CAN should not be granted discretionary intervention because: (1) discretion- )

i ary intervention can not be granted when there otherwise would be no hearing, and (2) CAN has I not demonstrated that it would make a valuable contribution to the Board's decision-making process in this matter. CAN has the burden of convincing the Board that its intervention would produce a valuable contribution to the Board's decision making process on a significant safety or environmental issue included in the proceeding at hand. Nuclear Engineering, ALAB-473, su-pra,7 N.R.C. at 745. CAN's concerns, however, relate to the " experimental transfer" of fuel over l l

the reactor vessel while the reactor is operational. Aff. of Katz at 1. Since these issues are t

l l

unrelated to the amendment request before the Board, they contribute nothing. Further, CAN has not identified the provision of any helpful witnesses or additional testimony they would bring to the proceeding. Nor has CAN identified any specialized education, particular expertise, or any other qualifications that would contribute to the Board's decision.  ;

The other factors considered with respect to discretionary intervention (seg discussion on pages 7-8, supra) also militate strongly against discretionary intervention. Located over 200 miles from Oyster Creek, CAN has an extremely remote interest, and there is in fact no indica-l tion that any decision by the Board in this narrow license amendment proceeding would preju- I i

dice CAN's ability to intervene in subsequent proceedings involving a neighboring plant where a direct interest might be demonstrated. Further, if the Board finds that one or both of the other I

petitioners has standing and orders a hearing, the participation of the Staff and the other interve-nor(s) with standing would adequately protect CAN's interest.

VIII. ASPECTS IDENTIFIED BY PETITIONERS Many of the aspects with respect to which petitioners indicate they seek to intervene, (Pe- l i

tition at 5-7), are beyond the scope of GPUN's amendment request and this proceeding The i Staffs proposed f'mding of no significant hazards consideration, for example, cannot be raised in  !

this hearing. See note 12, supn. GPUN will address this matter further when responding to spe-cific contentions.

IX. SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. @ 2.708, Licensee requests that service upon Licensee be made at the following addresses:  ;

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

David R. Lewis Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 l l

Michael Laggart GPU Nuclear Corporation 1 Upper Pond Road Parsippany,NJ 07054 i l

X. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Licensee respectfully submits that the Petition should be dismissed because NIRS, OCNW and CAN lack standing.

Respectfully submitted, Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

David R. Lewis ,

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 (202) 663-8084 Counsel for Licensee Dated: June 21,1996

7 l

l 1

00CKETED USHRC June 21,1996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY 00CKEitHG ^ O'ET BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD HP Afi 3H In the matter of ) 1

) Docket No. 50-219-OLA I GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B) l

) l (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) ) ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OLA 1

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned, being an attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before the courts of the District of Columbia and the State of Colorado, as well as various federal i

courts including the United States Supreme Court, hereby enters his appearance as counsel on be-half oflicensee GPU Nuclear Corporation, in any proceeding related to the above-captioned mat-ter.

l Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

SHAW, PITTMAN, PO1TS &

! TROWBRIDGE l

! 2300 N. St. N.W.

l Washington, D.C. 20037-1128

] (202)663-8000 i

l l

l 1

1 l

DOCKETED i USNRC June 21,1996

% JJN 24 All :05 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY 00CKETfNG d 5FWICE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DRANCH In the matter of )

) Docket No. 50-219-OLA i GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B)

) ,

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) ) ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OLA I NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned, being an attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before the courts of the District of Columbia hereby enters his appearance as counsel on behalf of i

licensee GPU Nuclear Corporation, in any proceeding related to the above-captioned matter, 1

David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

TROWBRIDGE 2300 N. St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 (202)663-8000 i

l

00CKETED USNRC June 21,1996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF FCPE TARy 00CKETmG&SEwict BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BRANCH In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-219-OLA GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Tech. Spec. 5.3.1.B)

)

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) ) ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OLA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "GPUN's Answer Opposing Request for Hearing and Petition for Intervention of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch, and Citizens Awareness Network," dated June 21,1996, and Notices of Appear-ance for Ernest L. Blake, Jr. and David R. Lewis, dated June 21,1996, were served upon the per-4 sons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 21st day of June,1996.

I G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman Peter S. Lam  ;

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l Mail Stop T-3 F 23 Mail Stop T-3 F 23 U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles N. Kelber Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3 F 23 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l \

l 1

Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Paul Gunter Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office of the General Counsel 142416th Street, N.W., Suite 404 Mail Stop O-15 B 18 Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William decamp, Jr.

Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch Docketing and Service Branch P.O. Box 243 Office of the Secretary Island Heights, New Jersey 08732 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )

Washington, D.C. 20555 Deborah Katz Citizens Awareness Network P.O. Box 83 Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts 01370 C _

David R. Lewis 320926-01 / DOCSDC1 I

I

_