ML19029A818
| ML19029A818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M Conner, Moore & Corber, Public Service Electric & Gas Co |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML19029A818 (10) | |
Text
. '
, I UNITED ST_i'\.TES OF AlilERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COt-1MISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the .Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AN'D Gl\S Docket No. 50-272
. --*~-'
COJ:.1PANY, et al. (Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility (Salem Nuclear Generating Operating License Station, Unit 1) No. DPR-70)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO MOTION BY INTERVENORS, COLEMl.\N, TO COi'1PEL SUPPLEMENTATION OF .ANSWERS 'l'O INTERROGATORIES BY LICENSEE On June 26, 1979, the Public .Advocate of New Jersey, counsel for the intervenors, Mr. and Mrs. ~lfred C. Coleman, Jr., in the captioned proceeding, moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §2.740(c) to com-pel supplementation of responses to certain interrogatories previously promulgated to the Licensee, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al. As discussed below, such motion should be denied.
As identified by the Colemans, the interrogatories for which supplementation is requested are Nos. 1, 3 and 6, presumably of the Colemans' interrogatories dated November 21, 1978. These interrogatories read as follows:
Interrogatory l
- 1. At p. 2 of the Safety Analysis, the licensee described the alternatives which r,.;ere considered and "determined to be un-satisfactory" for a variety of reaso!ls.
/
/
- Please describe the changes, if any, which have taken place in the status of spent fuel reprocessing and the availa-bility of the facilities of the General Electric Company and Nuclear Fuel Ser-vices available insofar as they relate to awci.y from reactor ("AFR.") alternatives.
For example, have the facilities applied for expansion of spent fuel storage?
Will these facilities be available for reprocessing or AFR storage? If so, when? If not, why not?
l(a). Please explain the basis for the statement (bottom of p. 2) that "storage in the existing racks is possible, but only for a short period of time." How long? What factors and assumptions underly the time of availability, (e.g.,
fuel burnup, capacity factor of the unit, transshipment, etc.)?
1 ( b) . Has the licensee considered the alternative in the intervenors 1 contention 9(D), "ordering the generation of spent fuel to be stopped or restricted", (e.g~,
operation of the unit with existing racks until an offsite AFR alternative is availa-ble.) If so, llease describe in full. If not, why not?
Interrogatory 3 Please provide a full update of the licensee's plans for discha~ge of spent fuel, the first batch of which is planned for discharge in January, 1979 (p. 3).
Interrogatory 6 What increase would occur in radiation levels in the storage water of the spent fuel pool in the event that the licensee's application is granted? (see p. 7) 6(a). What increase in radioactive materials and in radiation levels would occur in the coolant water filters? What increase would occur in the screens, traps, drains and pipes?
Please provide all relevant calculations and the basis therefore.
.. 6(b). Please explain the statement at
- p. 8 that "the amount of corrosion pro-ducts released into the pool during any year would be the same regardless of the storage capacity of the pool," assuming increased compaction and several years of discharged fuel?
The Licensee's responses to these interrogatories were forwarded to the Public Advocate on December 11, 1978. A brief review of the interrogatories and answers reveals that there is no relationship between them and the damage to the grid straps noted in the letter dated June 25, 1979 to the Board and parties from counsel for the Licensee. To date, the Public Advocate has never claimed that Licensee's re-sponses were, in any way, inadequate or nonresponsive to its interrogatories.
Section 2.740(e) (2) requires supplementation in the
_!/
following circumstances:
(2) A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response if he obtains information upon the basis of which (i) he knows that the response was incorrect when made, or (ii) he knows that the re-sponse though correct when made is no longer true and the circu.:~stances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowiTig concealment.
These circumstances clearly do not exist 2-n this case. It can be seen that these interrogatories and the resnonses
_JJ Section (1) which regards updati~g of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters and expert witnesses has no applicability here.
Section (3) here is also not applicable inasmuch as ~o duty to supplement has been im~osed by order of the Board or agreement by the parties.
have no relation to the grid strap problem. Aside from a general reference to §2.740(e), the Public Advocate fails to assert in what way a prior response waE incorrect when made or that a knowing concealment exists. In an absence of such a showing and considering the information related to the Licensing Board and parties on June 25, 1979, it is clear that these interrogatories need not be suppla~ented.
Therefore, the Public Advocate 1 s motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MOORE & CORBER Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Licensee July 6, 1979
UNITED STATES OF JI.MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM.MISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS Docket No. 50-272 COMPANY, et al. (Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility (Salem Nuclear Generating Operating License Station, Unit 1) No. DPR-70)
LICENSEE'. S ANSWER TO 11 INTERVErWRS COLE.MA.1.'\iS' i10TION FOR RECONSIDERi\TION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEM.i\NS' .
[CONTENTION] NO. SEVEN" On June 25, 1979, the Public Advocate of New Jersey, representing Mr. and Mrs. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr. in the captioned proceeding, moved for reconsideration of dismissal of the Colemans' Contention 7 by this Atomic Safety and
-==.. 1/
11 11 Licensing Board ( Board ).- As grounds for reconsideration, the Public Advocate cites a decision of the u. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colwllbia Circuit, ~*1innesota v.
NRC, Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032, (D.C. Cir. May 23, 1979). As discussed below, Licensee, Public Service Electric and Gas
- ... .J....
Company, et al., opposes the wotion for reconsicera'--ion.
It is undisputed that the Court cf Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has remanded the two cases pending before it to the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission
("NRC" or "Corr.mission") for further action regarding a
_J:/ The Board's May 24, 1978 Order Following Special Pre-hearing Conference denied the Colemans' proposed Contention 7.
determination whether off site spent fuel storage would be reasonably assured in the future or, if not, whether there is reasonable assurance that the fuel can be stored safely 21 at the reactor site. Moreover, as the Public Advocate admits, the Commission has not instructed the various atomic safety and licensing boards whether or how they must imple-3/
ment the D. c. Circuit 1 s mandate- nor has it taken any other action. It is also beyond dispute that the manner of exploration of this question was left to the discretion of
_v the NRC.
The Public Advocate would have this Board usurp the 11 prerogatives of the CoITLLuission by i:mmediately allow[ing]
the parties herein the opportunity to present evidence on the issue of the safety, environmental and health conse-quences of long-term nuclear waste storage on Artificial
_21 11 Island. The Public Advocate's motion to permit such evidence to be taken should be denied. Until the Corr~ission has instructed this Board to consider the remanded matters in this proceeding, the Board is without jurisdiction to
_]:_/ Colemans 1 brief at 1. It is also true that in those proceedings the court did not set aside or stay the challenged license amendments.
_]./ Id. at 2.
J I Id.
S/ This statement of the matters remanded leaves out an essential element of the remand and is in direct con-flict with the statement of the issue by the Court of Appeals found on p. l of the Colemans' brief.
consider any aspect of the remanded question on its own initiative. Because of the remand's generic nature, it may very welJ be that the Commission decides net to have this matter considered in individual adjudicatory proceedings and, instead, elects to have it considered in an ongoing or new generic proceeding. The decision of the D. C. Circuit
_§_I clearly leaves such an alternative open to the-Commission.
In such an event, no further consideration by this Board may be necessary.
_]_/
With regard to the "manifest injustice" alleged by the Public Advocate, such assertions are speculative at best. In any event, any claim of injury and request for redress must be directed to the Commission, not to this Licensing Board. To repeat, it is quite possible that intervenors will be required to pursue this matter t~rough participation in a generic rulemaking proceeding, and not in 1...ne present proceeding .
.L..'
Minnesota v. NRC, slip op. at 11, L~. See also Ver~o~t Yankee Nuclear Pow2r"Corn-:- v. NRDC, 435~S. 519, 535 n.13 (1978); Union of Concerned Scientists v. ABC, ~99 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Nader v. Ray, 363 F.Supp.
946 (D.C.C. 1973).
_21 Colemans' brief at 3.
under these circumstances, the motion for reconsidera-tion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted; CONNER, MOORE & CORBER Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Licensee July 6, 1979
- UNITED STATES OF P...MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COL'-'1.MISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC Ai.~D GAS ) Docket.~o. 50-272 COMPANY, et al. ) (Pronosed Issuance of
) Amendment to Facility (Salem Nuclear Generating ) Operating License Sta ti on, Unit 1) ) No. DPR-70)
CERTIFICATS OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Licensee's Answer to
'Intervenors Colemans' Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Colemans 1 [Contention] No. Seven" and "Licensee's Answer to Motion by Intervenors, Coleman, to Compel Suppleme!1tation of Answers to Interrogatories by Licensee," both dated July 6, 1979, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States mail this 6th day of July, 1979:
Gary L. Milhollin, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety Licensing B6ard Panel and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1815 Jefferson Street Commission Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Barry Smith, Esq.
Member, Atomic Safety and Office of the Executive Licensing Board Panel Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.mission Cornmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James C. La11b, III Richard Hluchan, ~sa.
Member, Atomic Safety and Deputy Attorney General Licensing Board Panel Departinent of Law and 313 Woodhaven Road Public Safety Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Environmental Protection Section Chairman, Atomic Safety and 36 West State Street Licensing Appeal Board Panel Trenton, N.J. 08625 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corr.mission Washington, D.C. 20555
Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Solicitor Carl Valore, Jr., Esq.
Valore, McAllister, Aron Public Service Electric & Westmoreland
& Gas Company Mainland Professional Plaza 80 Park Place P. 0. Box 175 Newark, N. J. 07101 Northfield, N. J. 08225 Keith Onsdorff, Esq. Office of the Secretary Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Docketing and Service Section Department of the Public Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division of Public Interest COIIll""Tii s s ion Advocacy Washington, D. C. 20555 Post Office Box 141 Trenton, N. J. 08601 June D. MacArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Sandra T. Ayres, Esq. Tatnall Building, P. O. Box 1401 Department of the Public Advocate Dover, Delaware 19901 520 East State Street Trenton, N. J. 08625 Mr. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr.
Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman 35 "K" Drive Pennsville, New Jersey 08070