Petition Supporting Review of Aslab Decision.Case Involves Matter That Could Significantly Affect Environ,Public Health & Safety & Involves,Important Procedural Issues & Public Policy Questions.Certificate of Svc EnclML20009H222 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Salem |
---|
Issue date: |
08/03/1981 |
---|
From: |
Valore C LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK, NJ, VALORE, C. |
---|
To: |
NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
---|
References |
---|
ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8108070054 |
Download: ML20009H222 (12) |
|
Similar Documents at Salem |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARLR-N980595, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr LR-N980588, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation ML18106A8811998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That Discussion Contained in SECY-98-061 Should Be Included in Draft NUREG ML18106A8731998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633 Re Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protetive Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That NUREG Should Provide Balanced Discussion on Benefits & Risks of Use of Ki LR-N980284, Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-19911998-06-12012 June 1998 Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-1991 LR-N980149, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis ML18102B4361997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Opposing NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Util Endorses Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Inst ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20084H9251995-06-0202 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Change in State Cooperative Agreements Program Concerning NRC Intention to Reduce Scope of Work.Believes That NRC Should Maintain Environ Monitoring Program & Find Other Ways to Reduce Duplicative Svcs ML20134K5021995-02-24024 February 1995 Transcript of 950224 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re C Vondra.Pp 1-136 ML20134K4971995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re L Reiter.Pp 1-64 ML20134K4791995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re V Polizzi.Pp 1-115 ML20134K4511995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re Plant.Pp 1-93 ML20080G8321995-02-0606 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Npp.Encourages NRC to Reevaluate Regulatory Analyses in Light of Higher Costs.Concludes That Addl Rules on Shutdown & Low Power Operations Not Necessary ML20077L8631995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal.Util of Belief That Proposed Rev Reflect Positive Effort Towards Establishing Regulatory Process Requirements for Continued Operation of Nuclear Facilities ML20132B2281994-08-0202 August 1994 Transcript of 940802 Enforcement Conference in Salem,Nj W/Salem Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor Involved in 940407 Event ML20067C1591994-02-17017 February 1994 Comments on NUREG/CR-5884 Re Analyses of Decommissioning for Ref PWR Power Station ML18100A5591993-08-26026 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Whistleblower Protection ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20072T2421991-04-11011 April 1991 Comment Re Proposed Change to 10CFR50.55A Re Inservice Testing of Containment Isolation Valves.Proposed Rule Should Be Revised to Allow Plants within Last 12 Months of Current Interval to Substitute Deferred Rv Shell Exams ML20235T1861989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule ML20195H0331988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing.Util Strongly Favors 180- Day Period for Implementation of Rule & 360-day Implementation Period for Random Drug Testing ML20153F9681988-08-17017 August 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Flexibility During Natl Crisis.Deferral of Issuance of Final Rule Until Proper Implementation Guidance Formulated Encouraged ML20154G1421988-04-20020 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73 Re Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program.Nrc Should Establish Program Mutually Agreed Upon Between Union & Util,Per Hope Creek & Salem Programs ML20154G4601988-04-18018 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Notification of Inspector Visits to Facility ML18093A6331988-02-0101 February 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules for Implementation of Plant Mods ML20151B3641987-02-24024 February 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20079N4271984-01-25025 January 1984 Response to State of DE 840120 Motion to Withdraw Petition for Leave to Intervene.Licensee Concurs in Motion.Dismissal of Proceeding Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079K9311984-01-20020 January 1984 Motion to Withdraw Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Extension of Time for Type a Test.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078P6771983-11-0404 November 1983 Answer to State of DE Atty General 831021 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing on License Amend Re Inservice Integrated Leak Tests.Notices of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078M1551983-10-21021 October 1983 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing on Proposed Issuance of Amend to License DPR-70 Re Inservice Integrated Leak Tests.Affidavit of Mailing Encl ML18087A8331983-04-12012 April 1983 Petition for Order to Show Cause Why Util Should Not Be Restrained from Restarting Facility Until Qualifications for Operation Demonstrated at Public Hearing ML18087A8341983-04-11011 April 1983 Affidavit of DG Bridenbaugh Re Delay of Facility Restart. Full Review of safety-related Equipment Must Be Completed & Appropriate Changes Implemented.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20213E3601983-03-0808 March 1983 Testimony Before Subcommittee on Energy & Environ Re Plant Licensing Concerns ML18086A9691981-10-14014 October 1981 Affidavit Confirming Validity of Util 811009 Response to IE Insp Repts 50-272/81-15 & 50-311/81-14 ML20005B6831981-08-20020 August 1981 Petition for Review of Aslab 810717 Order,Permitting OL Amend,Allowing Installation of New Storage Racks & Increasing Pool Capacity.Notice of Appearance & Affidavit of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20010C1481981-08-14014 August 1981 Response in Opposition to Lower Alloways Creek Township 810803 Petition for Review of ALAB-650.Petitioner Has Raised No Issue Which Warrants Commission Consideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009H2221981-08-0303 August 1981 Petition Supporting Review of Aslab Decision.Case Involves Matter That Could Significantly Affect Environ,Public Health & Safety & Involves,Important Procedural Issues & Public Policy Questions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18086A5181981-05-15015 May 1981 Answer Opposing AC Coleman 810504 Request for Stay of Initial decision,LBP-80-27,pending Appeal.Request Untimely & Fails to Meet Requirements for Issuance of Stay. Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A8401981-02-17017 February 1981 Brief Supporting ASLB 801027 Decision Authorizing OL Amend to Permit Storage of 1,170 Spent Fuel Elements in Facility Spent Fuel Pool.All Exceptions Should Be Denied.Aslb Has Adequately Weighed Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A5231981-01-13013 January 1981 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Support of 801111 Exceptions to ASLB 801027 Initial Decision Re Applicant Proposed Expansion of Fuel Storage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A4091980-12-0808 December 1980 Response to Intervenors Eg & a Coleman Motion for Extension Until 810131 to File Brief in Support of Exceptions.Opposes Motion But Would Not Object to 2-wk Extension.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A4081980-12-0404 December 1980 Appeal from ASLB Initial Decision Granting Util Right to Increase Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity.Nepa Requires Detailed Analysis of Safety & Health Problems Posed by Reracking.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D3431980-11-30030 November 1980 Request for Extension to 810131 to File Brief in Support of Exceptions to ASLB 801027 Initial Decision Re Spent Fuel Pool Proceeding.Certification of Svc Encl ML18085A2791980-11-20020 November 1980 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as Counsel for Intervenors Coleman.Intervenors Coleman to Remain Parties to Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A2501980-11-11011 November 1980 Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision.Alleges Erroneous Finding of Facts Re Contentions 2 & 6,evaluation of Eia, Acceptance of Pasedag Testimony & Rejection of Benjamin Testimony.Counsel Withdrawal & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A2161980-11-0404 November 1980 Exceptions & Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision. Exclusion of as Benjamin of Sandia Labs Testimony Is Arbitrary Due to Relevant Evidence Re Oxidation That Could Propagate to Older Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062J4921980-10-21021 October 1980 Addl Testimony Presented Before ASLB to Correct & Clarify 800710 Testimony Re Loss of Water from Spent Fuel Storage Pool ML18082A7101980-07-11011 July 1980 Reply Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Partial Initial Decision Substituting for Licensee 800613 Findings,In Response to ASLB 800509 Order & ASLB 800626 Question 5 on away-from-reactor Issues.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-09-15
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20079N4271984-01-25025 January 1984 Response to State of DE 840120 Motion to Withdraw Petition for Leave to Intervene.Licensee Concurs in Motion.Dismissal of Proceeding Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18087A8331983-04-12012 April 1983 Petition for Order to Show Cause Why Util Should Not Be Restrained from Restarting Facility Until Qualifications for Operation Demonstrated at Public Hearing ML20005B6831981-08-20020 August 1981 Petition for Review of Aslab 810717 Order,Permitting OL Amend,Allowing Installation of New Storage Racks & Increasing Pool Capacity.Notice of Appearance & Affidavit of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20010C1481981-08-14014 August 1981 Response in Opposition to Lower Alloways Creek Township 810803 Petition for Review of ALAB-650.Petitioner Has Raised No Issue Which Warrants Commission Consideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009H2221981-08-0303 August 1981 Petition Supporting Review of Aslab Decision.Case Involves Matter That Could Significantly Affect Environ,Public Health & Safety & Involves,Important Procedural Issues & Public Policy Questions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18086A5181981-05-15015 May 1981 Answer Opposing AC Coleman 810504 Request for Stay of Initial decision,LBP-80-27,pending Appeal.Request Untimely & Fails to Meet Requirements for Issuance of Stay. Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A4091980-12-0808 December 1980 Response to Intervenors Eg & a Coleman Motion for Extension Until 810131 to File Brief in Support of Exceptions.Opposes Motion But Would Not Object to 2-wk Extension.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A4081980-12-0404 December 1980 Appeal from ASLB Initial Decision Granting Util Right to Increase Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity.Nepa Requires Detailed Analysis of Safety & Health Problems Posed by Reracking.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D3431980-11-30030 November 1980 Request for Extension to 810131 to File Brief in Support of Exceptions to ASLB 801027 Initial Decision Re Spent Fuel Pool Proceeding.Certification of Svc Encl ML18085A2501980-11-11011 November 1980 Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision.Alleges Erroneous Finding of Facts Re Contentions 2 & 6,evaluation of Eia, Acceptance of Pasedag Testimony & Rejection of Benjamin Testimony.Counsel Withdrawal & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A2161980-11-0404 November 1980 Exceptions & Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision. Exclusion of as Benjamin of Sandia Labs Testimony Is Arbitrary Due to Relevant Evidence Re Oxidation That Could Propagate to Older Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18082A5481980-05-23023 May 1980 Proposed Corrections for 800430 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18082A5281980-05-13013 May 1980 Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 800328-29 Evidentiary Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18082A5261980-05-13013 May 1980 Request for Extension Until 800528 to File Transcript Corrections.States No Objection to NRC Motion for Similar Extension.Transcript Not Yet Received in Licensee Newark,Nj Ofc ML19323A9571980-04-21021 April 1980 Response in Opposition to Webb,Fankhauser & Portion of NRC Testimonies Based on Class 9 Accident Scenarios.Testimony Beyond ASLB Jurisdiction & Should Not Be Admitted Into Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18082A5011980-04-18018 April 1980 Reply in Opposition to Licensee Response to ASLB 800222 Memorandum & Order,Question 5,re Spent Fuel Pool Gross Loss of Water.Urges to Strike Testimony W/Appropriate Sanctions ML18082A4991980-04-18018 April 1980 Motion to Strike Licensee 800410 Response to ASLB 800222 Memorandum & Order,Question 5,re Spent Fuel Pool Gross Loss of Water.Licensee Should Be Barred from Participation or Compelled to File Testimony Due to Dilatory Conduct ML18082A5021980-04-18018 April 1980 Response in Opposition to NRC Testimony of Wf Pasedag Re ASLB Question 5.Spent Fuel Pool Old Fuel Would Be Involved in Enlargement Case & Would Consequently Increase Radiological Effects.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19305D7371980-04-11011 April 1980 Comments in Opposition to Township of Lower Alloways Creek 800325 Request for Suspension of Issuance of OL Per 10CFR2.206.Urges Denial Due to Untimeliness of Petition & Inadequacy of Allegations Re Noncompliance W/Nepa Rules ML19323D1891980-04-10010 April 1980 Response to ASLB Question 5 Re Gross Loss of Water from Facility Spent Fuel Pool.Loss Will Have No Adverse Consequences on Public Health & Safety Due to Adequate Cooling Achieved in Facility.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19323D5131980-04-0909 April 1980 Forwards Re Webb Technical Rept,In Response to ASLB 800222 Order Re Consequences of Gross Water Loss from Spent Fuel Storage Pool.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19305E7281980-04-0909 April 1980 Response Enclosing DB Fankhauser Testimony in Reply to ASLB 800222 Order Re Consequences of Gross Water Loss from Spent Fuel Storage Pool.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19309A4931980-03-25025 March 1980 Request for Suspension or Moratorium on Issuance of OL for Facility,Pending Conclusion of ASLB Hearing on Safety of Spent Fuel Storage Pool at Unit 1.Notice of Appearance of Cj Valore on Behalf of Intervenor Encl ML18082A1391980-03-25025 March 1980 Intervenor Request for Suspension or Moratorium on Issuance of Ol.Issuance Would Permit Same Enlarged Spent Fuel Pool That Is Subject of Ongoing Hearing ML18082A1301980-03-19019 March 1980 Motion for 30-day Extension to File Testimony Re Consequences of Water Loss from Spent Fuel Storage Pool. Urges Postponement of 800422 Evidentiary Hearing, Accordingly.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18081B0861980-02-14014 February 1980 Request for Taking Official Notice of White House 800212, Fact Sheet,President'S Program on Radwaste Mgt, Due to Relevancy of First Bullet,Page 2 & Third Bullet,Page 6.W/ Certificate of Svc & Fact Sheet ML18081A8881980-01-10010 January 1980 Opposition to Intervenors Coleman 791018 Request for Action Under 10CFR2.206.NRC Fulfilled Statutory Duty Per Endangered Species Act.No New Matters Raised by Intervenors Request ML18081A8171979-12-18018 December 1979 Opposition to Public Advocate of State of Nj 791106 Request to Reopen Intervenors Coleman Contention 9.Appeal Is Proper Procedure If Intervenors Dissatisfied W/Aslb Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18081A7471979-11-13013 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Public Advocate of State of Nj 791030 Supplemental Argument Supporting Motion for Reconsideration of Colemans Contention 13.Colemans Failed to Demonstrate Relevance of Claim.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18081A6971979-10-30030 October 1979 Supplemental Argument on Behalf of Intervenors Coleman to Reopen Coleman Contention 13 Re Reracking of Spent Fuel Pool.Actual Figures of Radiation Exposure During Reracking of Peach Bottom Nuclear Station Never Received ML18081A4181979-10-18018 October 1979 Petition Seeking NRC Issuance of Show Cause Order for Suspension &/Or Revocation of Ols.Operation of Facility Would Threaten Local Existence of short-nosed Sturgeon. Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18081A4871979-10-18018 October 1979 Seeks Show Cause Order & Suspension or Revocation of OL for Unit 1 & Stay or Licensing & Suspension or Revocation of CP for Unit 2.No Eia Performed Re Impact on Endangered Fish Species.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079A9711979-09-20020 September 1979 Applicant Comments on Request of Intervenors Coleman for Issuance of Order to Show Cause for Stay ML18079B0891979-08-31031 August 1979 Opposes Intervenors Coleman 790801 Request That ASLB Reopen Record for Newly Discovered Evidence Re Contentions 2 & 6. Insp Document Has No Relevance & No Significance to Proceeding ML19249B8201979-08-31031 August 1979 Petition to Amend 790802 Motion for Issuance of Show Cause Order & Stay of Licensing Procedure.Adds Addendum 7A & Contentions 8-10.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209C3871979-08-31031 August 1979 Motion,Submitted by Intervenors Coleman,That NRC Amend Request for Order to Show Cause & Stay Licensing.Seek Addl Contentions Re Cost/Benefit Analysis,Seismic Analysis & Class 9 Accidents ML18081A4141979-08-31031 August 1979 Seeks Denial of Intervenors Coleman 790802 Motion for Reconsideration of Contention 13 Re Release of Radioactive Matl.No Justification for Late Filing.Criteria for Compliance W/Operation Objectives Defined in 10CFR50,App I ML18079B1161979-08-29029 August 1979 Request by Intervenors Coleman That ASLB Accept Addl Argument on ASLB Question 4 Re Consideration of Class 9 Accidents.Nrc Admits That TMI Accident Was Class 9. Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079B1151979-08-27027 August 1979 Response to ASLB Question 4 Re Class 9 Accidents.Tmi 790328 Accident Was Class 9,constituting Successive Failures of Operator Procedures & Equipment.Testimony in Present Proceedings Requires Wide Latitude.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079B0881979-08-21021 August 1979 Response to ASLB Question 4,submitted on Behalf of Intervenors Coleman.Alleges TMI Accident Was Class 9 Accident.Accident Posed Significant Risk to Health & Safety of Population & Environ.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079B0611979-08-20020 August 1979 Responds to Question 4 of ASLB 790710 Order.Forwards C Kepford Rept on TMI Accident.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18081A4111979-08-10010 August 1979 Requests That ASLB Order Extension Until 790831 for Response to Intervenors Coleman Request to Reopen Consideration of Contentions 2 & 6 ML18079B0461979-08-0303 August 1979 Forwards Re Webb 790723 Rept, TMI Accident:Was It Class 9 Accident, in Response to ASLB 790710 Question 4 ML19208C3681979-08-0202 August 1979 Requests Issuance of Order to Show Cause & Stay of Licensing Per 10CFR2.202 & 2.206.NRC Has Failed to Act on Info Re PA-NJ-MD Grid,Cost/Benefit Analysis,Expansion of Spent Fuel Pool & Lessons Learned Re TMI ML18079B0851979-08-0202 August 1979 Request by Intervenors Coleman That ASLB Reconsider Dismissal of Contention 13.Intervenor State of Nj Supports Motion.Util Is Obliged Per 10CFR50 to Explore Alternatives to Spent Fuel Pool Expansion ML19225D1441979-08-0202 August 1979 Request That NRC Issue Order to Show Cause & Request to Stay Licensing.Requests Intervenor Status.Submits List of Contentions & Partial List of Resouce Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079B0871979-08-0101 August 1979 Request by Intervenors Coleman That ASLB Reopen Record Re Contentions 2 & 6.Intervenor State of Nj Supports Motion. Experiences at Northern State Power Co Are Pertinent to Proceedings ML18079A7621979-07-0909 July 1979 Response Submitted by Intervernor Township of Lower Alloways Creek to NRC Motion to Strike Portions of Re Webb & EA Gulbransen Testimony Re ASLB 790418 Order. Affidavit of EA Gulbransen & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079A8311979-07-0606 July 1979 Request Submitted by Util for Denial of Intervenors Coleman 790625 Request for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Coleman Contention 7.NRC Must Remand Matter to Aslb. Certificate of Svc Encl ML18079A8291979-07-0606 July 1979 Request Submitted by Util for Denial of Intervenors Coleman 790626 Request That ASLB Compel Licensee to Suppl Responses to Interrogatories 1,3 & 6.Questions Have No Relation to Grid Strap Problem 1984-01-25
[Table view] |
Text
~
S '5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p .;
Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f, ( R
% # Qi Jh s l Docket No. 50-272 OLA IN Tile MATTER OF (Spent Fuel Pool)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC
& GAS COMPANY, et al :
INTERVENOR, TOWNSliIP OP LOWER (Salen Nuclear Generating :
ALLOWAY CREEK'S PETITION IN Station, Unit 1) SUPPORT OF REVIEW OF TIIE DECISION AND ACTION OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL
- BOARD (10 CFR 2.786)
SUMMARY
OF ALAB DECISION Insofar as the Township of Lower Alloway Creek (TOLAC) is concerned, the decision of the Atomic Licensing Appeals Board:
(1) Affirmed the Order denyinq TOLAC's motion for further analysis of the oropagation of oxidation to older fuel in the event of a grosn loss of water from the pool, (2) Dismissed the exception t h a t- the oranting of the license would be a major commission action and therefore there would be a rerjuirement for an environmental imoact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C., S4321, et sea, and (3) Dismissed the exceotion that the findings of the
(
Atomic St.fety and Licensing Board were against the weight of the evidence. 05 5
II 8108070054 810803 PDR ADOCK 05000 0
~
MATTERS OF FACT AND LAW RAISED BEFORE THE ATOMIC LICENSING APPEALS BOARD Exception #1 before the Atomic Licensing Appeals Board raised the issue of whether further analysis could predict more orecisely whether oxidation could propagate to older fuel and that calculations for such analysis could be performed. (Initial Decision, page 39, line 1: Tr. 1483). Intervenor TOLAC, made a motion that the additional analysis should be nerformed and the motion was denied by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.
(Tr. 1493, line 4) (ALAB Decision, July 17, 1981, page 31, line 7, et seg. )
Exception #5 raised the point that it was error to hold that the license amendment requested by the applicant was not a major commission action significantly affecting the cuality of the human environment. The Intervenor raised the issue that the license amendment required an environmental impact statement under NEPA of 1969, 42 U.S.C. S4321, et sea., and the larger issue that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in combination with nuclear plant licensees has created the national policy of long term storage at-reactor-sites without preparing a generic environmental impact statement in violation of the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. S4332 (2) (c) (i) thru (v).
Exceptions #2, #3, and #4, deal with the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board being against the weight of the evidence introduced by TOLAC. Under 10 CFR, S2.786 (4) (ii) ,
it does not appear that the Commission would grant a Petition for Review since the intervenor TOLAC would have to prove that the Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board was clearly erroneous and contrary to the resolutio' that very same issue by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
TIIE DECISION OF TIIE ATOMIC LICENSING APPEALS BOARD WAS IN ERROR POINT I. (EXCEPTION #1) - TOLAC'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS SilOULD IIAVE BEEN GRANTED AND TiiE MATTER Sif0ULD BE REMANDED TO TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD.
It is contended that the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board committed factual and legal error in rejecting the testimony of Dr. Alan S. Benjamin of Sandia Laboratories that further analysis could predict more precisely whether oxidation could propagate to older fuel and that calculations for such analysis could be performed.
TOLAC made a motion that the additional analysis should be nerformed and the motion was denied by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.
(Tr. 1493, line 4). (See Initial Decision, page 30, li.no 1:Tr.1483).
There is authority that additional evidentiary hearings should be ordered where there are unresolved issues. This occurred In The Matter of Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Mos. 50-282 and 50-306, August 11, 1975, ALAB-284. In this case several unresolved issues including condensate domineralization, detectible leakage before tube failure, sufficiency of Eddy current surveillance, monitoring of secondary water chemistry and tube plugging criteria - were cause for reopening the record and ordering an additional evidentiary hearing.
Apparently, the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board reached the conclusion that even though Dr. Benjamin testified that further analysis could oredict more precisely whether oxidation would
-~ ,
propagate to older fuel, that such an analysis was not necessary in that the radioactive releases from older fuel would not be significant in comparison to radioactive releases from recently discharged fuel. While this may be true, Dr. Richard E. Webb's testimony on radioactive releases as well as the offered testimony I
of Dr. Frankhauswer was excluded by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. More important, the critical question as to whether the radioactive releases in an enlarged pool would be greater than the radioactive releases in the pools originally designed remains unanswered.
The Atomic Licensing Appeals Board should have remanded the case to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and directed that the record be reopened and a further evidentiary hearing should be ordered to take place so that the analysis indicated by Dr. Benjamin will be performed. (See Initial Decision, page 39).
The Atomic Licensing Appeals Board apparently reached l
the conclusion that the Intervenor TOLAC had a " heavy burden" of convincing the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic l
Licensing Appeals Board that a propagation analysis would have ,
made a relevant contribution to the Board's resolution of the gross loss of water question. This conclusion is rather interesting when one considers that the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board struck all of applicants testimony on the gross loss of water question l
_a_
in that it was not responsive. (12 NRC at 451; ALAB Decision of July 17, 1981 at page 30, following footnote 23). The effect of the Atomic Licensing Appeals Board Decision is to create the impression that an applicant can file totally unresponsive testimony to a legitimate and serious question raised by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and still obtain the amendment that is reauested by the applicant. Moreover, the impression is clearly created that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff witness, Mr. Pasedag carried the ball for the applicant since the effect of the applicant's testimony being stricken as unresponsive, was that the applicant filed no testimony whatsoever in response to the Board's question even though ordered to do so. It would seem that some of the characterizations engaged in by the Atomic Licensing Appeals Board in respect to testimony offered by TOLAC are unfair and unwarranted since TOLAC could have relied entirely on cross-e amination in respect to the Board's question and not produced
'ay direct testimony. TOLAC was not the applicant. I n s t e ,'d ,
TOLAC offered extensive direct testimony on the question raised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. TOLAC considers the characterization that intervenors had a " heavy burden" to be in error. Certainly, the burden of the intervenor TOLAC in respect to the Board question was no greater than that of the applicants.
Apparently, the Atomic Licensing Appeals Board at pages 31 and 32, of the Decision of July 17, 1981, consider that Mr. Pasedag's testimony put to rest the auestion as to whether there would be radioactive releases if in fact there were fires (oxidation) spreading to older fuel. The Atomic Licensing Appeals Board dismisses the testimony of Dr. Webb which is treated in footnote 25, on page 32 of the Decision of July 17, 1981, as not probative since Dr. Webb was unable to describe a mechanism for the release of the radioactivity from the pool and relate his testimony to the presence of older spent fuel in the pool. It is also true that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in paragraph 75 at page 70 of the Initial Decision disparaged the testimony of Dr. Webb. Iloweve r , Dr. Webb's qualifications and testimony are oart of the record. The testimony is extensive and difficult to parse, llowever, taken in its totality, the testimony does raise the spectre of serious consequences in the event of a gross loss of water accident in the pool.
Apparently, both Dr. Benjamin and Dr. Webb agree that additional analysis is required. For purposes of this Petition, the Commission must ask itself whether it will allow the Board's question to be answered only by Mr. Pasedag. There is no doubt that Mr. Pasedag and Dr. Webb have considerable disagreement as to the conscauences of a zirconium fire in the spent fuel pool. Apparently, Mr. Pasedag is of the opinion that there could not be any significant radioactive i
releases from the old fuel. Dr. Webb whs of the opinion that there would be considerable releases of cesium and strontium (Tr. 1702, 1731 - 2. ,
The Atomic Licensing Appeals Board is of the opinion that Prairie Island, ALAB-284, involved more difficult and highly technical safety issues requirino resolution and is not on point in respect to the unresolved safety questions that TOLAC contends surround the Board's question concerning a gross loss of water
-G-
accident in the spent fuel pool. Tolac respectfully disagrees.
In fact, at page 70, footnote 46 of the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board it was observed that the Board's question involved complicated physical processes and in fact, Dr. Benjamin initially expressed an opinion that propagation of fire in the spent fuel pool was more probable than not. It is true, I that this opinion was changed as detailed in footnote 46, however, the very candor with which the Atomic Licensing and Safety Board credits Dr. Benjamin should certainly carry through, and additional analysis of the question of propagation of fire in the spent fuel pool should be more thoroughly studied both as to its probability of occurrence and the consequences of radioactive release. The record below falls far short of resolving the Board's own cuestion in respect to this serious matter involving public health and safety.
POINT II. TIIE ENLARGEMENT OF TIIE SPENT FUEL POOL AT SALEM 1 AND CONSEQUENTLY AT SALEM 2 ALONG WITil Ti!E EXPANSION OF SPENT FUEL POOLS AT PRACTICALLY EVERY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING IN TIIE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTES MAJOR COMMISSION ACTION SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTING Tile QUALITY OF IIUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND Tl!ERE IIAS BEEN NO GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUPSUANT TO TIIE REQUIREMENTS OF 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c) (i) thru (v).
Either through iintention or inadvertence, the NRC has developed a masterful strategy for avoiding the requirements of l NEPA, 42 U.S.C. S4332 (2) (c) (i) thru (v).
NUREG-0575, volume 1 " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on llandling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" (August , 1979) discusses alternatives at Section 3.0, page 3-1. Significantly, the away-from-reactor alternative is not given a NEPA type analysis although the away-from-reactor concept is given tangential mention at pages 3-8 and 3-9.
_ _ _ - 7. _ _ __ __ , _ .__
m i TOLAC contends that the NRC is obligated to give away-from-reactor storage a detailed NEPA analysis as an alternative to increasing at-reactor storage capacity. This has not been done by the NRC.
In it's announcement dated Scotember 15, 1975, the Commission stated its position that, in the public interest, there would be no deferal of licensing actions on the individual expansion of at-reactor spent fuel storage capaicty while the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0575) was being prepared.
As of January, 1979, 39 applications to expand capacity were approved and 65 applications were filed. There is no doubt we now have wha: may be a final solutior. to the spent fuel storage problem. The failure of NUREG-0575 to adequately consider the away-from-reactor alternative violates NEPA. The fact that the NRC attempts to say that at-reactor storage is oniv interim storage and not permanent disposal is merely an opinion that nay have no foundation in reality. The long absence of any orders for light water nuclear power olants may very well mean the end of the first genre of nuclear power plants in the United States.
Even though the Commission has initiated a oroceeding to review the basis for confidence for safe waste disposal or terminal disposal which will eventually be available, th.is does not alleviate the potential for serious accidents occurina at nuclear plants during the period of time prior to an eventual solution to the safe and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
In the past, the NRC has been fond of applying NEPA's " rule of reason" as to the possible consequences of actions that must be considered. The " rule of reason" was first enunciated in NRDC v. Morton, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 5, 458 F2d (1972) quoted with with approval Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 538-39 (1978) and Kleope v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 410n21(1976).
That rule requires a federal agency to direct its environmental inquiries as to events tha' are " reasonably probable" and not " theoretically possible". Using that rule, it has been justified that it is only theoretically possible that no site fuel repositories would be available for storage of spent fuel and that it is reasonably probable that such facilities would be available. The same rule should also be applied to accident hazards. Since it has now admitted that Three Mile Island was a Class 9 Accident, we are no longer dealing with theoretical possibilitiesofseriousaccidentsatnuclearplants-inshead we are dealing with reasonably _ probable accidents that will occur in the future.
The NRC should: 1) reouire the applicant to thoroughly evaluate the alternative of an away-from-reactor storage facility on the grounds that such a facility would be inherently more consistent with the public health and safety in that if there were an accident at Salem Unit 1 or Unit 2 of serious proporti'ns, large amounts of older spent fuel - still containing long-lived radionuclides - would not be involved in the accident if they were stored away-from-reactor, and 2) the NRC should initiate an Environmental Impact Statement prepared under NEPA dealing with the alternatives of away-from-reactor storage as opposed to at-reactor storage.
COMMISSION REVIEW SHOULD BE EXERCISED This case involves an important matter that could significantly affect the environment, the public health and safety and involves an important procedural issue and auestion of public policy.
Respect fully, submit ted ,-
,Y'
/[ - 4 ; / t /,,,
,A &c % .--
CARL J. VALORE, SPECIAL NUCLEAR COUNSEL FOR THE' TOWNSHIP OF LOWER ALLOWAY CREEK August 3, 1981
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-272 OLA IN THE MATTER OF (SP ent Fuel Pool)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTh!C
& GAS COMPANY, et al (Salen Nuclear Generating Station, Unit #1) ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenor, Township of Lower g Alloway Creek's Petition in Support of Review of the Decision and Action of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786, in the above captioned proceedings have been r,erved on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, at the Northfield, N.J. post office, this 3rd cay of August, 1981.
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Mr. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman Washington, D.C., 20555 35 "K" Drive Pennsville, N.J., 08070 Victor Gilinski, Member Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C., 20555 Asistant General Soliciter Public Service Electric Peter Bradford, Member & Gas Co.
Nuclear Requlatory Commission 80 Park Place Washington, D.C., 20555 Newark, N.J., 07101 John F. Ahearne, Member Nuclear Regula'_ary Coramission Washington, D.C., 20555 Ms. Janice E. Moore, Counsel for the NRC Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtor . D.C., 20555 Docketing and Service Section upf' I/ i-Office of the Secretary CARL' ()-VALORE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D.C., 20555 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner & Moore 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050 Washington, D.C., 20006 l