|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | issue date = 10/30/1979 | | | issue date = 10/30/1979 |
| | title = 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 | | | title = 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 |
| | author name = ONSDORFF K A, VAN NESS S C | | | author name = Onsdorff K, Van Ness S |
| | author affiliation = NEW JERSEY, STATE OF | | | author affiliation = NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| | addressee name = | | | addressee name = |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:... {. '* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket No. 50-272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit #1) Proposed Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS I cmnrnrrml THIRTEEN KEITH A. ONSDORFF ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY (609) 292-1692 STAMLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE 520 EAST STATE STREET TRENTON, NJ 08625 G- | | {{#Wiki_filter:... |
| *-k ,_ ' PRELIMINARY STATEMENT By responses dated August 22, 1979 and August 31 > 1979, the NRC Staff and licensee opposed reversing this B.oard 1 s April 30, 1979 dismissal of Colemans 1 Contention No. Thirteen.
| | {. |
| Subsequent to these submittals> | | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket No. 50-272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. Proposed Insurance-~f Amendment to (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 Unit #1) |
| the Staff by letter dated October 15, 1979 submitted an affidavit of Dr. Donohew detailing that reracking the Salem One Spent Fue1 Poo1 11 result in an increase of the Relative Toxicity Index (RTI) of about 50 percent. The transmittal letter of counsel then concludes by concurring in the proposition, first advanced by licensee, that "additional examination be permitted only if a showing in v1riting is made that establishes a substantial challenge to the methodology and conclusions contained therein.11 Licensee 1 s Response to Motion for Reconsideration of *---*---Colemans' Contention No. Thirteen, p. 5 (August 31, 1979). While it should be clear beyond serious dispute that parties .:.. to plenary litigation can not be deprived of their due process rignts to cross-examination of dire-ct testimony or its equivalent, the Colemans do have such reservations concerning the evidence recently submitted by the Sti!ff. Th2 conci:;rns of the Colemans ai*e outlined belo\'1 \"lithout pr-ejudice to their rights to examine all witnesses fully on these issues of alternatives to the Salem One reracking and compliance with the ALARA *standard with out l imitation to the matters expressed herein. It should also be noted that while the Staff has filed considerable data estimating or projecting (adiatfon exposures and future toxicity levels, the parties have not received the actual | | SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS cmnrnrrml ~lU:*lBE"R THIRTEEN I |
| ' . radiation exposures experienced during the reracking of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station, despite the representation that this information would be provided.
| | STAMLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE 520 EAST STATE STREET TRENTON, NJ 08625 KEITH A. ONSDORFF ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY (609) 292-1692 G- |
| TR. 1157-19 to TR. 1185-5. ARGUMENT Documents obtained from the Washington, D.C. Public Document Room, maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Cor.missior. | | |
| for use by merr:bers of :he public, report t.hJ.t t!":e rcrJcking of the Cconee 11:.lclear G2r.erating Station would entail an estimated | | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT By responses dated August 22, 1979 and August 31 > 1979, the NRC Staff and licensee opposed reversing this B.oard 1 s April 30, 1979 dismissal of Colemans 1 Contention No. Thirteen. Subsequent to these submittals> the Staff by letter dated October 15, 1979 submitted an affidavit of Dr. Donohew detailing that reracking the Salem One Spent Fue1 Poo1 ~-ri 11 result in an increase of the Relative Toxicity Index (RTI) of about 50 percent. The transmittal letter of counsel then concludes by concurring in the proposition, first advanced by licensee, that "additional examination be permitted only if a showing in v1riting is made that establishes a substantial challenge to the methodology and conclusions contained therein. 11 Licensee 1 s Response to Motion for Reconsideration of *---*--- |
| ''radiation dose to the work force (of) 150 man-rem. 11 Environmental Impact Appraisal, Duke Pm.;er Company, Docket No. 70-2623, p. 53 (copy attached hereto as Exh. A). While it can not be precisely determined from these documents what the basis is for the EIS' radiation exposure projection, the fact remains that it constitutes a substantial increase over the 2-5 man-rem estimate provided by the Staff in the v1ithin proceeding. | | Colemans' Contention No. Thirteen, p. 5 (August 31, 1979). |
| The very disparity of estimates makes it all the more important to obtain actual exposure data from several re-racking experiences to more accurately evaluate the accuracy of the various projections seen to date. Then, such prior experiences may be fairly scrutinized in the hearing process to determine their applicability to the Salem reracking proposal during llnd cross-exl1rnination. | | While it should be clear beyond serious dispute that parties to plenary litigation can not be deprived of their due process rignts to cross-examination of dire-ct testimony or its equivalent, the Colemans do have such reservations concerning the evidence recently submitted by the Sti!ff. Th2 conci:;rns of the Colemans ai*e outlined belo\'1 \"lithout pr-ejudice |
| Additionally, I \'/Ould like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the licensee 1 s argument that the ALARA standard is inapposite to the evaluation of the viable alternatives to the cumulative impacts to be . ' occassioned byreracking both the Salem One and Salem Two nuclear plants. * 'J --15\-- | | *- to their rights to examine all witnesses fully on these issues of k |
| {Licensee Response dated 8/31/79, p. 12). It would appear that the NRC Staff has on several occasions taken a contrary legal position, most significantly in this litigation itself. By submittal dated March 1979, the Staff in seeking to support the licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition argued that reracking Salem One rather than transshipment to Sal em fo*o constituted compliance 1*ii th the ALARA requirement (r!RC Staff Response to Licensee's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Sur.7i1ary Disposition; pp. 4 & 5). P,t pc1ge fi'Je on th2 Staff's Res;:ionse it is stated that: 13. Expansion of the Salem Unit 2 SFP rather than Salem Unit 1 SFP was considered by the Staff and found that the Unit l pool would be full by 1982 and the Unit 2 in early 1989. This alternative is inconsistent with the objective of maintaining occupational exposure as low as reasonably achievable. | | ' alternatives to the Salem One reracking and compliance with the ALARA |
| Moreover, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the expansion of Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool. (Emphasis Added). -It is respectfully urged that this Staff conclusion in of 1979 that transshipment was not an acceptable alternative should now be fully explored at the resumed hearings since the contamination of the Salen One SFP coup1ed \*1ith the grecltly reduced fuel burnup <:Jt this reactor first announced in July of 1979 .hGs material1y changed the basis for this premature determination. | | *standard with out l imitation to the matters expressed herein. |
| Moreover, as part of the discovery in the Duke Pm*1er Company, Oconee NGS proceeding, the Acting Leader for the Radiation Protection Section, RAB in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis NRR, John Nehemias, concluded that transshipment of the Oconee spent fuel to McGuire NGS would constitute compliance with ALARA while reracking the Oconee spent fuel pool would not. (Nehemias memorandum dated June 13, | | It should also be noted that while the Staff has filed considerable data estimating or projecting (adiatfon exposures and future toxicity levels, the parties have not received the actual |
| ,', .) 1979, p. 3, attached hereto as Exhibit B). These highly material revisions to the methodology and conclusions which fonn the fundamental basis for licensees proposal to enlarge the spent fuel pool at Salem One rather than use the ample unused space at the Salem T\*JO SFP clearly \*1arrant additional examination to establish by the statutorily mandated hearing process 1t1hich of these t\vO viable storage methods constitutes compliance with the ALARA standard.
| | |
| | radiation exposures experienced during the reracking of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station, despite the representation that this information would be provided. TR. 1157-19 to TR. 1185-5. |
| | ARGUMENT Documents obtained from the Washington, D.C. Public Document Room, maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Cor.missior. for use by merr:bers of :he public, report t.hJ.t t!":e rcrJcking of the Cconee 11:.lclear G2r.erating Station would entail an estimated ''radiation dose to the work force (of) 150 man-rem. 11 Environmental Impact Appraisal, Duke Pm.;er Company, Docket No. 70-2623, p. 53 (copy attached hereto as Exh. A). While it can not be precisely determined from these documents what the basis is for the EIS' radiation exposure projection, the fact remains that it constitutes a substantial increase over the 2-5 man-rem estimate provided by the Staff in the v1ithin proceeding. The very disparity of estimates makes it all the more important to obtain actual exposure data from several re-racking experiences to more accurately evaluate the accuracy of the various projections seen to date. Then, such prior experiences may be fairly scrutinized in the hearing process to determine their applicability to the Salem reracking proposal during direc~ llnd cross-exl1rnination. |
| | Additionally, I \'/Ould like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the licensee 1 s argument that the ALARA standard is inapposite to the evaluation of the viable alternatives to the cumulative impacts to be occassioned byreracking both the Salem One and Salem Two nuclear plants. |
| | 'J |
| | |
| | {Licensee Response dated 8/31/79, p. 12). It would appear that the NRC Staff has on several occasions taken a contrary legal position, most significantly in this litigation itself. By submittal dated March 30~ |
| | 1979, the Staff in seeking to support the licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition argued that reracking Salem One rather than transshipment to Sal em fo*o constituted compliance 1*ii th the ALARA requirement (r!RC Staff Response to Licensee's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Sur.7i1ary Disposition; pp. 4 & 5). P,t pc1ge fi'Je on th2 Staff's Res;:ionse it is stated that: |
| | : 13. Expansion of the Salem Unit 2 SFP rather than Salem Unit 1 SFP was considered by the Staff and found that the Unit l pool would be full by 1982 and the Unit 2 in early 1989. This alternative is inconsistent with the objective of maintaining occupational exposure as low as reasonably achievable. |
| | Moreover, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the expansion of Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool. (Emphasis Added). |
| | - It is respectfully urged that this Staff conclusion in ~arch of 1979 that transshipment was not an acceptable alternative should now be fully explored at the resumed hearings since the contamination of the Salen One SFP coup1ed \*1ith the grecltly reduced fuel burnup <:Jt this reactor first announced in July of 1979 .hGs material1y changed the basis for this premature determination. |
| | Moreover, as part of the discovery in the Duke Pm*1er Company, Oconee NGS proceeding, the Acting Leader for the Radiation Protection Section, RAB in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis NRR, John Nehemias, concluded that transshipment of the Oconee spent fuel to McGuire NGS would constitute compliance with ALARA while reracking the Oconee spent fuel pool would not. (Nehemias memorandum dated June 13, |
| | |
| | 1979, p. 3, attached hereto as Exhibit B). These highly material revisions to the methodology and conclusions which fonn the fundamental basis for licensees proposal to enlarge the spent fuel pool at Salem One rather than use the ample unused space at the Salem T\*JO SFP clearly |
| | \*1arrant additional examination to establish by the statutorily mandated hearing process 1t1hich of these t\vO viable storage methods constitutes compliance with the ALARA standard. |
| CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Colemans' Contention Number Thirteen should be reopened. | | CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Colemans' Contention Number Thirteen should be reopened. |
| DATED: October 30, 1979 Respectfully submitted, STANLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE . BY: ir/;f! {l(2t/I!
| | Respectfully submitted, STANLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE |
| A. ONSDORFF / 'j ""'\ ASSISTANT DEPUTY | | . BY: ir/;f!{l(2t/I! |
| * }} | | K~ITH A. ONSDORFF / 'j ""'\ |
| | ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC(AO.~ |
| | * DATED: October 30, 1979 |
| | .)}} |
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
...
{.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket No. 50-272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. Proposed Insurance-~f Amendment to (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 Unit #1)
SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS cmnrnrrml ~lU:*lBE"R THIRTEEN I
STAMLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE 520 EAST STATE STREET TRENTON, NJ 08625 KEITH A. ONSDORFF ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY (609) 292-1692 G-
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT By responses dated August 22, 1979 and August 31 > 1979, the NRC Staff and licensee opposed reversing this B.oard 1 s April 30, 1979 dismissal of Colemans 1 Contention No. Thirteen. Subsequent to these submittals> the Staff by letter dated October 15, 1979 submitted an affidavit of Dr. Donohew detailing that reracking the Salem One Spent Fue1 Poo1 ~-ri 11 result in an increase of the Relative Toxicity Index (RTI) of about 50 percent. The transmittal letter of counsel then concludes by concurring in the proposition, first advanced by licensee, that "additional examination be permitted only if a showing in v1riting is made that establishes a substantial challenge to the methodology and conclusions contained therein. 11 Licensee 1 s Response to Motion for Reconsideration of *---*---
Colemans' Contention No. Thirteen, p. 5 (August 31, 1979).
While it should be clear beyond serious dispute that parties to plenary litigation can not be deprived of their due process rignts to cross-examination of dire-ct testimony or its equivalent, the Colemans do have such reservations concerning the evidence recently submitted by the Sti!ff. Th2 conci:;rns of the Colemans ai*e outlined belo\'1 \"lithout pr-ejudice
- - to their rights to examine all witnesses fully on these issues of k
' alternatives to the Salem One reracking and compliance with the ALARA
- standard with out l imitation to the matters expressed herein.
It should also be noted that while the Staff has filed considerable data estimating or projecting (adiatfon exposures and future toxicity levels, the parties have not received the actual
radiation exposures experienced during the reracking of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station, despite the representation that this information would be provided. TR. 1157-19 to TR. 1185-5.
ARGUMENT Documents obtained from the Washington, D.C. Public Document Room, maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Cor.missior. for use by merr:bers of :he public, report t.hJ.t t!":e rcrJcking of the Cconee 11:.lclear G2r.erating Station would entail an estimated radiation dose to the work force (of) 150 man-rem. 11 Environmental Impact Appraisal, Duke Pm.;er Company, Docket No. 70-2623, p. 53 (copy attached hereto as Exh. A). While it can not be precisely determined from these documents what the basis is for the EIS' radiation exposure projection, the fact remains that it constitutes a substantial increase over the 2-5 man-rem estimate provided by the Staff in the v1ithin proceeding. The very disparity of estimates makes it all the more important to obtain actual exposure data from several re-racking experiences to more accurately evaluate the accuracy of the various projections seen to date. Then, such prior experiences may be fairly scrutinized in the hearing process to determine their applicability to the Salem reracking proposal during direc~ llnd cross-exl1rnination.
Additionally, I \'/Ould like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the licensee 1 s argument that the ALARA standard is inapposite to the evaluation of the viable alternatives to the cumulative impacts to be occassioned byreracking both the Salem One and Salem Two nuclear plants.
'J
{Licensee Response dated 8/31/79, p. 12). It would appear that the NRC Staff has on several occasions taken a contrary legal position, most significantly in this litigation itself. By submittal dated March 30~
1979, the Staff in seeking to support the licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition argued that reracking Salem One rather than transshipment to Sal em fo*o constituted compliance 1*ii th the ALARA requirement (r!RC Staff Response to Licensee's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Sur.7i1ary Disposition; pp. 4 & 5). P,t pc1ge fi'Je on th2 Staff's Res;:ionse it is stated that:
- 13. Expansion of the Salem Unit 2 SFP rather than Salem Unit 1 SFP was considered by the Staff and found that the Unit l pool would be full by 1982 and the Unit 2 in early 1989. This alternative is inconsistent with the objective of maintaining occupational exposure as low as reasonably achievable.
Moreover, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the expansion of Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool. (Emphasis Added).
- It is respectfully urged that this Staff conclusion in ~arch of 1979 that transshipment was not an acceptable alternative should now be fully explored at the resumed hearings since the contamination of the Salen One SFP coup1ed \*1ith the grecltly reduced fuel burnup <:Jt this reactor first announced in July of 1979 .hGs material1y changed the basis for this premature determination.
Moreover, as part of the discovery in the Duke Pm*1er Company, Oconee NGS proceeding, the Acting Leader for the Radiation Protection Section, RAB in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis NRR, John Nehemias, concluded that transshipment of the Oconee spent fuel to McGuire NGS would constitute compliance with ALARA while reracking the Oconee spent fuel pool would not. (Nehemias memorandum dated June 13,
1979, p. 3, attached hereto as Exhibit B). These highly material revisions to the methodology and conclusions which fonn the fundamental basis for licensees proposal to enlarge the spent fuel pool at Salem One rather than use the ample unused space at the Salem T\*JO SFP clearly
\*1arrant additional examination to establish by the statutorily mandated hearing process 1t1hich of these t\vO viable storage methods constitutes compliance with the ALARA standard.
CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Colemans' Contention Number Thirteen should be reopened.
Respectfully submitted, STANLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE
. BY: ir/;f!{l(2t/I!
K~ITH A. ONSDORFF / 'j ""'\
ASSISTANT DEPUTY PUBLIC(AO.~
.)
