ML20076M304
| ML20076M304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Slade M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307200227 | |
| Download: ML20076M304 (7) | |
Text
I , .
- n .
f: A- ;, 2 .~~
gy 3 .7 . -
' ~ au':W
,p 3 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f s
i;- j' y %. ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [_ Jg
_ P 9-fg19 m-\.
~
- p. Q ?
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO .
Y q
_ 'd7 ,
' d; In the' Matter of ) '
g E. ~'
)
ELECTRIC' CORPORATION ) j
~ '
) Docket No. 50-244 4.. (R. E.tGinna Nuclear )
i
,_ Powerg Plant. Unit )
No. 1j~ -.
) l Ki 1- -
STATUS REPORT OF MICHAEL L. SLADE
$b -Mc OF JULY 15,1983
. . - ~ .
l
.T ~
z MICHAEL L. SLADE, INTERVENOR, (hereinafter referred to as i SLADE) hs reby replies to the request of the Atomic Safety and I Licensini Board,(ASLBP No.~
79-427-07 LA), Docket 50-244 OL, June 15,1983 as issued by Herbert Grossman, Chairman, " Order Requesting Further Status Reports".
5'.
Finally, on July 12, 1983, M'itzi A. Young, counsel for the NRC staff, the staff, initiated a conference between herself representing the applicant and SLADE. The conference took place by telephone at essentially the last possible hour before the status report deadline, commencing at 6:30pm EDST, July 14,1983.
ITEM a The APPLICANT stated that it has no further issuances and the STAFF stated that it has two issuances expected on or before September. 1,1983 with a further supplement or correction to expectedTprior to November 1,1983. one ITEM b SLADE hereby expects that since the APPLICANT and the STAFF now claim-that they now expect, some approximately eleven YEARS after the beginning of the filing of the application for a m$$ permanent operating license was requested, to have almost R@4 completed their filings, to file some revised and/or oo additional 00 boxes contentions. of A suitable period for an individual to deal with the 0 paperwork filed by the STAFF and the APPLICANT is six 3 months. SLADE hereby states that the period for filing revised gg and/or additional contentions be six months after the filing of t o all additions, O@ Given that the staff now claims corrections, etc. of the STAFF and the APPLICANT.
gg before November 1, 1983, to have filed everything on or the six month period should begin ggg November. 1,1983 o'r whenever thereafter the STAFF and APPLICANT w
n yy@,, .-
9
- k
.d#,6.s'%$Mhm . , . . . ,
- g
. am. ~ g .. .
g wny g m y,y . . . -
p gg n y- -
"(ncompleteithei'r filings.
zw; J' ~
. : - . e. ~ . ; QP ,
ITEM c
~a.:p ~ _ :.
'sf SLADE . believes that there is no need for a prehearing order conference or conference at this time. A formal discovery'ntions.
~
.wis expected to.be-part hereby of the ruling on changes to all notes or-requests copies of conte At this:. time, SLADE transcripts or other records of all meetings between the STAFF
'and the-~ APPLICANT for which copies have not previously been parties previously
- 7~i provided_las per the stipulation between the -
4 agreed to?~ i In ~ 3ddition to this information being required to be ;
furnishedsas per the stipulation between parties, SLADE notes the
.m .followingi :
Thek[ meetings have regularly been held in or around i
'7 Washington; rather than in the neighborhood of the site of the !
travel expensive, time l
~ ~ proposed?:~ permanent license, making extreme consuming ,and possible to ce attended only through sacrifice =of earnings.
.a Noiice of the meetings, although apparently given to the APPLICANT 7 in a timely manner, has often been given to SLADE HAS by '
ente ring [ the notice into the U.S. mail AFTER THE MEETING OCCURRED!! While the U. S. mail has on rare occasions rendered
~
fast service, no one, not even the staff of the NRC can expect that it deliver something four days before it receives it. Thi$$ egregious example of the actions of the STAFF concerns Thursday May, 12,1983 scheduled for Bethesda, a meeting of Maryland to discuss generator tube sleeving. While the noticeuntil has typed on:it a date of May 10,1983, it was not postmarked May 16,1983 and did not reach SLADE until on or after the 18th of May. If the applicant was informed by the same procedure, their attendance.at this meeting, at the very least, strains anyone's credulity.- example is a- meeting of May 18, 1983, Another recent notification alleged to have been typed May 16,1983 but actually postmarked May 23, 1983. Clearly the STAFF, the APPLICANT and other: parties who particpated in these and other similar meetings,have had special on the opportunities not afforded SLADE or any or all others appropriate notification lists. j This willful violation of the purpose of/ the notification to
~
all parties of meetings between the APPLICANT and the STAFF must ~ not be ignored. The notice requirement--is not just a bureaucratic formalism. ! In addition to the remedy of providing transcriptions and memoranda pertaining to all meetings between STAFF and the ! .all 2 l
__----____ _ _ x-- -- - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _ --- t
'~
fk'[. ng , [.['.-N 7 _m 7
$ *.l . :L"-m * "~
APPLICANT, 'SLAD5 requests that both the STAFF and APPLICANT be
.= J. fined and that they share'the cost of all expenses for travel, T " . food;and lodging as well as compensation for loss of salary, to
. all those 'on the relevant notification lists who have been agrieved in the past by the lack of appropriate - meeting
, notification who wish to be present at any future meeting between the ~ STAFF and the APPLICANT. Such expenses to be paid for all meetings between now and the completion of all matters, including
.;r; , appeals, 'wnich may.arise from.this application for a permanent j operating license.-
~5 .
If.the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board acquiesces to this
. :- collusion of, STAFF and APPLICANT, SLADE requests that it remove
<- itself as biased from this application and all others to which
_ either the STAFF or APPLICANT is a party.
"l.
X. . . . . 1 ITEM d
~
As no conference is proposed, there is no suggested agenda. ITEM e , 1
~
SLADE insists that the board must issue a re-notice for and opportunity for intervening and requesting hearing. It is not at all a surprise that during the conference between parties both the STAFF and the APPLICANT indicated that they would oppose any request for a re-notice. SucE pcsitions .on re-noticing by STAFF and APPLICANT are
~
entirely self-serving. APPLICANT has consistently done only the bare minimum required since anything more would cost them more money. STAFF naturally would oppose re-noticing since it might be considered an admission that they had done a less than adequate job in defending the public interest in this case. If the STAFF had done an adequate job in this case, there would have been no fuel densification problem, there would have been no steam generator problem nor would there have been any of the other failures to operate in the manner prescribed by the NRC rules and regulations. STAFF and APPLICANT's position on this request should be
' ignored. If and when other potential intervenors state their contentions, then STAFF and APPLICANT'S positions on these matters can be examined. They should not be allowed to deny the rights which would be created by a re-noticing to be quashed.
SLADE contends that whether or not a re-noticing is required, the Board has an obligation to the public to re-notice. This proceeding is not to see if the APPLICANT has satisfied the requirements that existed in 1972 but the substantial _ly different requirements that exist today.
~
There have been major incidents at nuclear ' power plants which have resulted in a complete new 'or ~ revised set of 3
. .- -~ --
T , 4, , .7 - a requirements' for a nuclear plant today, i.e.' the Browns Ferry Efire and the incident at Three Mile Island (and, of course, such incidents at Ginna itself as the recent steam generator failure . , and radioactivity' release). NAs. only have there been major changes in regulations,- the
- STAFF-- has approved exceptions for compliance with ' current regulations for pre-existing f acilities.- A process which truly. ,
inquires as to whether or not APPLICANT has complied with current rules should give with specificity, all insistences where it has . been granted an exception from meeting the same requirements as a i plant being built from scratch today. , _. Th'e ' APPLICANT has already been operating for over twenty five . percent of the facility's planned lifetime; this alone indicates the need for.special notice as to the sufficiency of its ability to decommission the facility. The APPLICANT is storing far in excess of the original design in spent fuel rods. There is every indication that for the forseeable future it will be required to store even more. . Given .this situation, SLADE believes that the Board is
. obligated to re-notice and in addition to the usual information j provided in such a notice include the following information:
A^ history.of the plant's operation including a summary of all deviations from planned operation including such occurrences as the- fuel densification problem and the steam generator failures.
^
A summary of all formal and informal contentions about the plant such as the allegations of ignoring concrete slump test
- failures during construction which were made in the mid-1970's and never publicly resolved.
A list in detail of all exceptions granted to the APPLICANT from meeting current NRC standards and the reasons the retrofits t' were not. required include references to the supporting documentation. . -An itemization of.all NRC requirements today that did not
' exist a t- the time of.the orignal application for. a permanent operating' license and appropriate references to the documentation that shows that these regulations have been complied with, w
A'5' certification .from the STAFF and the APPLICANT that the I local document collection is complete and ordered and a listing > ' of all documents filed.- SLADE fully expects that both the STAFF and the APPLICANT will not only oppose re-noticing but will oppose the inclusion of ANY- of the suggested items in the notice. The correct test of whether or.not to include these items in the re-notice is'not the All .these , items .must be
- ' opinion of STAFF or APPLICANT.
4 \-
'f . ..
incorporated in order for the public to adequately decide whether I it wants to apply to intervene and what contentions should be pursued during the hearing. If and when such matters are heard, both the S.TAFF *and the APPLICANT will be given sufficient opportunity to show that they have complied with the spirit and intent of the rules, regulations of the NRC and the relevant law. The public must be given the widest latitude possible' to point out possible failures in compliance by the APPLICANT and STAFF. There are sufficent incidents to show that, even with public scrutiny, STAFF and APPLICANT have made serious and dangerous errors. SLADE believes that this covers all items for which a status report was requested. r v v MICHAEL L. SLADE f ~'s3 Pittsford, New York July 15, 1983 l 4 s
Y _ . , . .. 5'," E
, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
.g-f b t :
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 g- d(/f 16 5, I9% 24 i- ag ~~ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 'I , j Cv / In the. Matter of ,"' N-
)
)
ROCHESTER GAS & ) ELECTRIC CORPORATION )
-t ) Docket No. 50-244 (R. E. Ginna Nuclear )
l Power Plant, Unit ) l No. 1 ) { .- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, MICHAEL L. SLADE, hereby certify that copies of " Status Report. of Michael L. Slade of July 15,1983" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 15th day of July, 1983:' Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman, Administrative Judge . { Atomic Safety and Licensing Warren B. Rosenbaum, Esq. Board- One Main Street East U.S. Nu~ clear Regulatory 707 Wilder Building Commission Rochester, New York 14614 Washington , D.C. 20555 Rochester Committee for Dr. Richard F. Cole, Administrative Scientific Information Judge P.O. Box 29236' Atomic. Safety and Licensing River Campus Station Board Rochester, New York 14627-5236 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert N. Pinkney, WashJngton , D.C. 20555 Supervisor "1 107 Ridge Road West Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Town of Ontario Atomic-Safety and Licensing Ontario, New York 14519 Board-
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington '
, D.C. 20555 washington, D. C.
Harry H. Voigt, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert S. Faron Appeal Board Leboeuf, Lamb, Leiby &MacRae U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.: Washington, D. C. 20555
- Suite'1100 Washington, D.C. 20036
Sccrotary. U.S.~ Nucloar R0gulatory Commicsion Attn: Chief,' Docketing & . Service Branch . Washington,D. C. 20555 Stanley B. Klimberg, General Counsel Jay Dunkleberger N w York State Energy Office - Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza i Albany, New York 12223 i NGw York State Attorney General's Offi'ce Consumer Frauds, Energy & Utility Divsion
- Room 4615 2 World Trade Center l New York, New York 10047 >
Mitzi A. Young, Esq. i Counsel for NRC Staff c U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 Washington, D. C. 20555 i 1
' ~
Dated: July 15,1983 r Pittsford, New York Michael L. Slade I
,,ee
__.__ . - - - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - - - - . - - _ _ - _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _. L}}