Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-16-1999 - 302i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN+SPI -~ 919 644 0246 tJO.093 February 12,1999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE NRC STAFF In the Matter of ) CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket No. 50-400 (Shearon Harris Nuclear ) Power Plant) ) ORaiNGE COUNTY'S COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETER1y1INATION AND CONDITION.~iL REQUEST FOR A STAY OF EFFECTIVENESS INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ~ 50.92(a)(2), Orange County, North Carolina, hereby submits the following comments in opposition to the Nucleaz Regulatory Commission's {"NBC's" or "Commission's") proposed No Significant Hazards determination resarding a proposed license amendment to permit expansion of spent fuel storage capacity at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant. The proposed license amendment and finding of no significant hazards considerations were noticed in the federal Register on January 13, 1999, 64 Fed. Reg. 2,237. These comments are supported by the attached Declaration of Dr. Gordon Thompson (February 13, 1999) (hereinafter "Thompson Declaration"). The~proposed No Significant Hazards finding should be withdrawn because the operational changes allowed by the proposed license fail to satisfy any of the three criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 50.9? for dispensing with a prior hearing. The finding should also be withdrawn because the proposed amendment does not satisfy the NBC's standard for a categorical exemption from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), as set forth in 10 C.F.R. § S 1.22(c). Therefore, as required by NEPA and 10 C.F.R. D02 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON,CURRAN,SPI -~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D03 .~_ § 51.25, the Staff must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") or an Envimnmentai Assessment ("EA'7 prior to issuing the proposed license amendment. Finally, the issuance of a ficense amendment prior to the conduct of a heazing in this case exceeds the ~ purpose and authority granted by Congress in passing the 5holly amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. In the event that the NRC Staff rejects these comments and decides to go ahead with a 5nal finding that the license amendment poses no significant haaazds considerations, Orange County requests the Staff to stay the effectiveness of the proposed license amendment for ten days, in order to maintain the status quo while the County appeals the Staff s decision. F:~CTUAL BacKCROUND Cazolina Power & Light ("CPBcL'~ has applied for a license amendment that would allow it to increase the spent fuel storage capacity at the Harris plant, by adding rack modules to spent fuel pools C and D and placing the pools in service.' Pools C and D were part of the original Hams design, intended to serve the plant's Units ?and 3. Unit 2 and 3 were cancelled, and therefore the pools have remained empty. Now CP&L seeks co use the pools for storing spent fuel from the Farris reactor, as well as the Brunswick and Robinson reactors. CP&L seeks modifications to the plant's design to allow it to install racks and store up to 8,x05 spent fuel assemblies in Pools C and D. In order to meet NRC safety requirements, the plant's design would have to be modified to provide cooling by the component cooling water ("CCW ~ system for Unit ~ 1. Because the CCW system has a limited heat load capacity, CP&L would alter its tech specs to impose administrative limits on the heat load in pools C and D, such 'For a more detailed description of the proposed license amendment, see Thompson Declaration, section E. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON.CURRAN.SPI j 919 644 0246 N0.093 D04 .3_ that they would not exceed 1.0 million BTU/houc.~ CP&L also seeks permission to use coolant piping installed some years ago for Unit 2, for which quality assurance documentation has been either lost or purged. The January 13, 1999, Federal Register notice sets forth the reasons why the NRC Staff believes the proposed amendment poses no significant hazards. It also offers interested members of the public an opportutity to request a hearing on the proposed license amendment. The Federal Resister notice provides no indication that the Staff has performed any environmental review under NEPA: the notice contains no reference to an EIS, EA, or Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"). Simultaneously with the filing of these comments, Orange County has filed a Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene regarding the proposed ticense amendment. Orange County's Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene (February 12, 1999). The County seeks a prior hearing on the safety and environmental issues raised by the proposed license amendment, including aU of the concerns raised in these No 5ienificant Hazards comments. ARGUMENT I. THE PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT DOES NOT SATISFY THE NRC'S STANDARD FOR A DETERMYNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS. Under Section 189a of the Atomic Encrgy Act, the issuance of a license or License amendment must await the conclusion of any public hearing that is granted. 42 U.S.C. § 4432(a)(I j. Pursuant to the "Sholly" amendment to Section 1 B9a, 42 U.S.C. § 4432(x)(2), the NRC may issue a license amendment prior to the hearing. if it finds the amendment would pose =At some later point, CP&L plans to upgrade the CCW to accommodate a larger heat load. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON.CURRAN.5P1 ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D05 -4- "no significant hazards considerations: ' The NRC standard for making a No Significant Hazards determination is found in l0 C.F.R. § 50.92, which provides that the NRC may make find that a license amendment poses no significant hazards considerations if it would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As discussed in the attached Declaration of Dr. Gordon Thompson, none. of these criteria is satisfied by the proposed license amendment. A. Tate Staff Fails to Show That the Operation of the Facility In Accordance With the Proposed License Amendment Would Not Involve a Significant lacrense ie the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Prtvionsly Evaluated. In the Federal Register notice, the Staff concludes that operation of the Harris facility in accordance with the proposed license amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. As discussed in the Thompson Declaration, this claim is false, for several reasons. Activation of pools C and D will roughly double the total number of fuel handling operations to be conducted at Hams. Assuming that the general nature of fuel handling operations continues as before, the probability of a fuel assembly drop or misloaded fuel assembly, integrated over the entire period of the Harris operating license, will increase significantly, by a factor of two. If probability is integrated over the remaining period of the Harris operating license, rather than over its total duration, then activation of pools C and D will more than double the probability of a fuel assembly drop or a misloaded fuel assembly. The probability of a criticality accident will also be more than doubled, and the consequences of a criticality accident may also be significantly increased. Thompson Declaration, par. 42. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN.SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D06 •5• Moreover, activation of pools C and D will add to the electrical load and CCW heat load of existing Harris systems. It will also add to the burden of work on the Harris operators. These effects will increase the probability of two categories of accidents. First, they will significantly increase the probability of accidents associated with the Harris reactor, because the reactor's CCW and electrical systems and iu operators will be under greater stress. Second, they wilt significantly increase the probability of accidents at the Harris pools that aze attributable to interruprions in cooling and electricity supply and to increased operator stress. Thompson Declaration. par. 43. The Staff is also incorrect in stating that the consequences of accidents will not increase. To the extent that severe accidents have been previously evaluated, their consequences will be significantly increased by the activation of pools C and D. The fuel storage capacity of these pools will roughly double the storage capacity at Hants, creating the potential for a doubled inventory of radioactivity. Severe accidents could affect some or all of the Harris pools. Thus, the potential doubling of radioactivity in the pools could signifrcantiy increase the consequences of such accidents. Thompson Declaration, paz. 44. B. The Staff Fails to Show That the Operation of the Facility Ia Accordance Witb the Proposed I.iceast Ameadtpeat Would Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Aay Accident Previously Evaluated. Under its regulations, the NRC may not make a no significant hazard determinations if it finds that a proposed license amendment would create even the possibility of a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated. The Staffmay not rationalize the amendment by addressing the merits of how likely the accident is to occur. San Luis Obispo Mothers jor Peace v. (~S. NRe, 799 F.2d 1268 (9'~ Cir. 1986). 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN+SPI -~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D07 _6. According to the Federal Register notice, the only kind of accident that might conceivably be considered new is the accidental drop of a fuel rack; but that accident was already considered in relation to pool B. 64 Fed. Reg. at 2?39. Thus, the Staff concludes that the proposed license amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. As discussed in Section J of the Thompson Declaration, this conclusion is incorrect, for several reasons. First, it does not appear that there has been any site-specific evaluation of the probability or consequences of severe accidents at pools A and B at Harris. The NRC has performed evaluations of accidents involving loss of water from fuel pools, generically and for sites other than Hams. However, these evaluations aze seriously deficient because they failed to consider partial uncovering of fuel. See Thompson Declaration, Sections G and H. Thus, at pools A and B there exists the possibility of new or different kinds of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The same possibility will exist at pools C and D if these are activated. Severe accidents at some or all of the Harris pools could lead to offsite radiation exposure an order of magnitude Larger than the exposure from the Chernobyl accident. Second, the addition of pools C and D to the Unit 1 cooling system creates the possibility of a new accident that was not previously considered. As Dr. Thompson poinu out, the IPE and IPEEE studies performed for Harris did not address the provision of backup electrical power and CCW service to pools C and D. As Dr. Thompson points out, the need to provide cooling to pools C and D will place increased stress on the CCW system and backup diesel generators as well as the plant operators during a design basis loss of coolant accident ("LGCA'~, thereby creating the possibility of a new accident. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN+SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D08 .~. C. The Staff Fails to Show Tbat the Operation of the Facility In Accordance With the Proposed License Amendment Would Not Il4volve a Significant Redncdon in a Margin of Saf€ty. The Staff s conclusion that the operation under the license amendmcnt would not involve a reduction in a safety margin is without merit. The information provided in the license amendment application clearly demonstrates that the plant's safety margin would be significantly reduced by the proposed license amendment, As discussed in the Thompson Declaration, Section I, activation of pools C and D will create an additional heat load on the existing CCW system. CP&L proposes to meet this load in the short term by exploiting the margin in the CCW system. The safety margin will be reduced even further if, during a LOCH, the operators must divert water from the RHR to the spent fuel pools. This will increase stress on the operators and create opportunities for human error. Thus, the reduction in the CCW safety margin caused by the increased heat load is significant. Certainly, the NRC has provided na reason to conclude that it is not sigttificant.3 The Staff fails to address the impact on the margin of safety caused by CP&L's proposal to use a cooling system for pools C and D using piping that will not satisfy ASME code requirements. See Thompson Declaration, pars. 23 and S0. As Dr. Thompson observes, this action could potentially cause a significant reduction in mazgins of safety for pool coaling. CP&L's alternative analysis has not been subjected to any public scrutiny or rigorous review. It deserves, at the least, thorough consideration at a licensing hearing before the license amendment 3 Moreover, as pools C and D become filled and the reactor receives a power uprate, the load on the CCW system will increase further. CP&L offer no assurance that the present margin of safety will be restored by upgrading the CCW system to accommodate these burdens. 02i16i99 09:45 HARh~N+CURRAN+SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D09 -g- 1S 1SSlied. The margin of safety is also affected by CPBtL's proposal to provide electrical service to pools C and D from the existing Unit 1 system. which includes the Unit 1 dedicated emergency diesel generators. These diesel generators already serve the safety systems in Unit 1 and spent. fuel storage pools A and B. By adding pools C and D to the load carried by the Unit 1 diesel generators, CP&L would add stress on the diesel generators and on the plant operators in the event of a-loss of offsite power. These effects could significantly reduce the margin of safety at the Hams reactor and the fuel pools. iI. THE PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS FINDING FaiLS TO MEET THE NRC'S STAND 4RD FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA. The Federal Register notice makes no mention of NEPA or its requirements to issue an EIS or EA in support a proposed federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Presumably, the Staff bclicves that it is exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIS or EA under 10 C.F.R. § 51.?2(c)(9)(i). This provision allows the NRC to forego preparation of an EIS or EA "with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, es defined in part 20" of NRC regulations, if, inter alfa, the amendment "involves no significant hazards consideration." As demonstrated in Dr. Thompson's Declaration, the proposed amendment fails to satisfy any of the criteria for a finding of No Significant Hazards considerations. Therefore. the NRC Staff en ed in relying on the exemption. Moreover, an EIS or EA must be prepared because the proposed license amendment entails more than redesigning the Hams plant and installing and activitating a spent fuel coaling 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON.CURRAN.SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D10 -9- system. It also involves the importation of a significant quantity of spent nuclear power plant fuel from other nuclear power plants around the area, and the doubting of the inventory of spent fuel on the site. Tr fact, if the license amendment is granted, the Shearon Harris plant would become the largest spent fuel storage facility east of the Mississippi River. As recognized in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporarion (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP- 88-19, 28 NRC 145 (1988), there is no "independent utility" to the racking of a spent fuel pool: the only reason for the application is to permit the expansion of spent fttel storage at the plant. While the importation of additional spent fuel is not covered by the license amendment application, it is the intended result of the amendment. To narrowly focus the NEPA inquiry on the racking and cooling of the spent fuel pools would constitute unlawful segmentation of the NEPA decisionmaking process. Id. However, this is just what the NRC Staff apparently did in determining that no EIS or EA is required in this case. The NEPA questions that Orange County would raise in a hearing on the application include issues relating to the risk of the proposed cooling system; the impacts of foreseeable severe accidents involving a ;neatly increased inventory of spent fuel on the site, including the impacu of an accident involving partial drainage of the spent fuel pools; the impacts of transportin, and handling additional fuel; the environmental risks raised by using materials lacking proper QA certification; and the need for the increased spent fuel pool capacity.' `With respect to need, CP&L asserts in Enclosure 1 to iu license amendment application that it has implemented a spent fuel shipping program "because DOE spent fuel storage facilities are not available and are not expected to be available in the foreseeable future." This assertions contradicts the Commission's Waste Confidence decision, which forbids challenges to the NRC's assumption that a federal repository will be available by the first quarter of the 21" century. The conflict between CP&L's assertion and the Waste Confidence decision must be addressed in a public hearing before the amendment can be allowed to go forward. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMDN.CURRAN~SPI ~ 919 644 0246 ND.093 Dli -10- lll. THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF A HEARING EXCEEDS THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE SHOLLY A11~NDMENT. The Sholly amendment to the Atomic Energy Act allows the Commission to issue a license amendment before completion of a heating if it finds the amendment would pose "no significant hazards considerations," and directs the Commission m promulgate implementing regulations. The language of 10 C.F.R. § 50.92 provides that the Commission "may" make a determinatin that no significant hazards considerations are involved, if it finds that the criteria for such a determination are met. However, the regulations do not require a determination in every case where the criteria are satisfied. Even if the Staff finds that the criteria are satisfied here, it should withdraw the proposed finding in this case, because there are no circumstances warranting the immediate issuance of a license amendment before a hearing can be held. As former Commissioner Asselstine has previously pointed out, Congress intended the Sholly amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to have limited purposes; In requesting the enactment of the Sholly amendment, the Commission described in some detail the actions in which it foresaw a need for this authority. The Commission ~ emphasized the need for a large number of unforeseen and unanticipated changes to the i detailed technical specifications in the operating licenses for nuclear power plants that arise each year through such activities as refuelin; of the plant. The Commission argued that the need to hold a hearing on each of these changes, if one is requested, would be burdensome to the Commission and could disrupt the operation of a number of plants. In order to avoid this problem, the Commission asked the Congress to reinstate the authority that the Commission had exercised in similar situations since 19b2. A reracking amendment is substantially different from the situations described by the Commission in requesting the Sholly amendment because reracking involves a substantial physical modification to the plant and because the need for reracking can be anticipated. Pacific_~Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2}, CLI- i 86-I2, 24 NRC 1, 17,Separate Views of Commissioner Asselstine (1986) (emphasis added). 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN+SPI -~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D12 -11- Commissioner Asselstine also pointer out language in the legislative history indicating that Congress did not intend the Sholly amendment to apply to the reracking of spent fuel pools. Id. at 16. Even assuming for purposes of argument that the No Significant Hazards criteria are met, the circumstances of this case raise a number of potentially significant safety issues that should be addressed in a public hearing before the license amendment is issued, including design modifications that would add a significant demand load to safety cooling and electrical backup systems, use of cooling pipe whose quality assurance documentation is missive, the lack of any previous assessment of the impacts of partial drainage of the spent fuel pools vn an extremely urge inventory of spent fuel. ,Moreover, there is no particular urgency to this license amendment. The pmposcd changes are to take place over an extended period of time. Even if the changes are perceived by CP&L as ur?ent, they could have been anticipated years before. Under the circumstances, there is no justification for issuing the license amendment before a hearing can be conducted. 1V. IF THE STAFF 1SSUES A FINAL DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT IiA2ARDS CONSIDERATIONS, IT SHOULD STAY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DETERMINATION FOR TEN DAYS PENDING ORANGE COUNTY'S APPEAL. in the event that the Staff rejects these comments and decides to finalize the proposed No Significant Hazards determination, Orange County requests the Staff to stay the effectiveness of the finding for ten days, in order to maintain the status quo while Orange County prepares an appeal of the determination. Orange County further requests that the Staff respond to this request at least ten days before issuing the license amendment, so that Orange County may be apprised of the aced to take appropriate alternative measures to preserve the status quo. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON,CURRAN,SPi ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D13 -12- V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff should withdraw the proposed determination of no signiScant hazards considerations for the proposed amendment to the Shearon Harris operating license. If the Staff decides co deny this request, it should stay the effectiveness of its determination for ten days to preserve the status quo while appeals are taken. Respectfully submitted, ~L Diane Curran HA.RMON. CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG 2001 "S" Street N.W., Suite X30 Washington, D.C. 20009 ?02l328-300 FAX: 202/328-b918 e-mail: DCutran.HCSF,Qa zzapp.org 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON,CURRAN.SPI -~ 919 644 0246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) CAROLINA POWER 8t LIGHT ) Docket No. 50-400 (Shearon Harris Nuclear } Power Plant) ) ORANGE COUNTY'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE I. INTRODUCTION N0.093 D14 February 12, 1999 Pursuant to the notice of opportunity to request a hearing turd petition to intervene. published in the Federal Register on January 13, 1999, 64 Fed. Reg. 2,237, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, hereby requests a hearing and petitions to intervene in the license amendment proceeding regarding expansion of the spent fuel pool storage capacity at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Carolina Power & Light ("CP&L"} has applied for a license amendment that would allow it to increase the spent fue! storage capacity at the Harris plant, by adding rack modules to spent fuel pools C and D and placing the pools in service. Pools C and D were port of the original Hams design, intended to serve the plant's Units 2 and 3. Units 2 and 3 were canceled, and therefore the pools have remained empty. Now CP&L seeks to use the pools for storing spent fuel from the Harris reactor, as well as the Brunswick and Robinson reactors. CP&L seeks modifications to the plant's design to allow it to install racks and store up to 8,405 spent fuel assemblies in Pools C and D. In order to meet NRC safety requirements, the 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN+SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 -2- plant's design would have to be modified to provide cooling by the component cooling water ("CCW 7 system for Unit 1. Because the CCW system has a limited heat load capacity, CP&L would alter its tech specs to impose administrative limits on the heat load in pools C and D, such that they would not exceed 1.0 million BTU/hour.' CPBtL also seeks permission to use coolant piping installed some years ago for Unit 2, far which quality assurance documentation has been either lost or purged. III. REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE A. Orange Connty Has Staadiug to lnterveae on Behalf of Its Citizens. Under the Atomic Energy Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission, "any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate" in a licensing proceeding may file a request for bearing and petition to intervene. 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(I). A party's right to intervene under the Act is based upon whether (1) the action being challenged could cause injury-in-fact to the petitioner, and (2) such injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy At or the National Environmental Policy Act ("1VEPA"). Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Srarion, (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power. station), L$P-90-6, 31 NRC 85, 89 (1990), citing Portland General Electric Co.(Pebble Springs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976). 1. Orange Connty Will Suffer Injury-In-Fact If the NRC Grants the Proposed License Amendment. Orange County will suffer injury-in-fact if the proposed license amendment is granted. Orange County is a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, charged with carrying 'At some later point, CP&L plans to upgrade the CCW to accommodate a larger heat D15 load. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON,CURRAN,SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D16 -3- out state policies on a local level and authorized to protect the citizens of the County through its police power. The entire county lies within the 50-mile Emergency Planning Zone around the Hams facility, and part of the county lies within 1 S miles of the plant. The proposed license amendment threatens the County's interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens and the integrity of the environment in which they live. The risk of injury to Orange County posed by the proposed license amendment is "distinct and palpable." Kelly v. Selin, 42 F.2d 1501, 1508 (6'" Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2611 (1995), quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.5.490, SO1(1975). The injury is also directly "traceable" to the proposed license application and can be redressed by a decision denying the application. As discussed in the attached comments on the NRC Staff's proposed determination of no significant hazards, the proposed license amendment would raise the probability of an accident at the plant, create the possibility of a new accident not previously reviewed by the NRC, and reduce the plant's safety margin. If the proposed license amendment is granted, there is an increased risk of an accident in the spent fuel pool or the plant, which could cause a significant radiological release to the environment. See Declazation of Gordon Thompson (p'ebruary 12,1999), which is attached to Orange County's Comments in Opposition to No i Significant Hazards Determination aad Conditional Request for a Stay of Effectiveness (February 12,1999).= 2. Orange County's Interests Fall Within the Zone Protected by the .Atomic Energy Act and the National Eavironmental Policy Act. Orange County seeks a hearing for the purpose of addressing the safety and 2Copies of Orange County's comments and Dr. Thompson's Declaration are attached to this pleading, and are adopted and incorporated by reference in support of Orange County's standing to participate in this proceeding. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON+CURRAN+SPI ~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 D17 -4- environmental risks posed by the proposed license amendment. These concerns fall well within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA. B. Statement of Aspects on W6icr Orange Couaty Seeks to Intervene Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b)(2), a hearing petitioner is required to state the "specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding" as to which it wishes to intervene. The purpose of this requirement is not to judge the admissibility of the issues, but to determine whether the petitioner specifies "proper aspects" for the proceeding. Consu~rrers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978). The requirement is satisfied by identifying general potential areas of concern that are within the scope of the proceeding Vermond Yankee, supra, 31 NRC at 89. The aspects of the proceeding on which Orange County seeks to intervene are set forth in detail in the attached Declazation of Dr. Gordon Thompson, Sections F and G, and in the attached No Significant Hazards Comments, Section II. To summarize, Orange County seeks to address the safety and environmental risks posed by the proposed cooling and electrical backup system for the spent fuel pools, the use of coolant piping for which quality assurance documentation is no longer available, the use of administrative measures to compensate for the additional heat load placed on the CCW cooling system, the partial leakage of the spent fuel pool, and the importation, transfer and handling of a large additional quantity of spent nuclear power plant fuel to the Shearon Harris site. 02i16i99 09:45 HARMON.CURRAN.SPI -~ 919 644 0246 N0.093 DiB -5- III. CONCLUSION . For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Orange County is entitled under the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations to a hearing, and should be permitted to intervene in this proceeding, pending the admission of at least one contention. Respectfully submitted, ~~~- e Curraa HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG 2001 "S"Street N.W., Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 242/328-35~ FA7C: 202/328-6918 e-mail: DCurran.HCSE®zzapp.org