|
|
Line 49: |
Line 49: |
| : 12. The interest of the State of Delaware and the public interest in maintaining the high standard of compliance which the NRC expects of its licensees, 10 C.F.R. 2, App. C at I, requires that PSE&G management meet its safety-related testing requirements in a timely fashion. | | : 12. The interest of the State of Delaware and the public interest in maintaining the high standard of compliance which the NRC expects of its licensees, 10 C.F.R. 2, App. C at I, requires that PSE&G management meet its safety-related testing requirements in a timely fashion. |
| : 13. The fact that PSE&G would be required to shutdown, after 5 months of operation, in order to perform the test does not relieve PSE&G of its responsibility for meeting its Operating License's conditions. The purpose and efficacy of the rules and regulations set by the NRC as conditions for operating a nuclear generating station is destroyed when a licensee seeks to avoid a safety test for financial reasons. | | : 13. The fact that PSE&G would be required to shutdown, after 5 months of operation, in order to perform the test does not relieve PSE&G of its responsibility for meeting its Operating License's conditions. The purpose and efficacy of the rules and regulations set by the NRC as conditions for operating a nuclear generating station is destroyed when a licensee seeks to avoid a safety test for financial reasons. |
| : 14. The lengthy shutdown following the February 22 and 25, 1983 events was a result in part of " insufficient management involvement in establishing a safety perspective, in requiring attention to detail, and in ensuring procedural adherence" as the NRC stated in its May 25, 1983 letter to PSE&G accompanying the Notice of proposed imposition of maximum civil penalties. | | : 14. The lengthy shutdown following the February 22 and 25, 1983 events was a result in part of " insufficient management involvement in establishing a safety perspective, in requiring attention to detail, and in ensuring procedural adherence" as the NRC stated in its {{letter dated|date=May 25, 1983|text=May 25, 1983 letter}} to PSE&G accompanying the Notice of proposed imposition of maximum civil penalties. |
| Those penalties were subsequently imposed in order to ensure that in the future PSE&G would give full attention to safety considerations. Within months of being fined, PSE&G is again placing safety considerations second to financial considerations by seeking to delay a safety related test which it could have scheduled and completed at any time during the 20 month period from March, 1982 to October, 1983. | | Those penalties were subsequently imposed in order to ensure that in the future PSE&G would give full attention to safety considerations. Within months of being fined, PSE&G is again placing safety considerations second to financial considerations by seeking to delay a safety related test which it could have scheduled and completed at any time during the 20 month period from March, 1982 to October, 1983. |
| : 15. Permitting PSE&G to delay the requisite timing of the Type A test based on the earlier shutdown, in effect, allows PSE&G to benefit from its indifference and the negligence of its management which lead to the events of February 22 and 25, 1983 and PSE&G's failure to schedule and conduct the Type A tests in a timely fashion. | | : 15. Permitting PSE&G to delay the requisite timing of the Type A test based on the earlier shutdown, in effect, allows PSE&G to benefit from its indifference and the negligence of its management which lead to the events of February 22 and 25, 1983 and PSE&G's failure to schedule and conduct the Type A tests in a timely fashion. |
Latest revision as of 02:55, 27 September 2022
Similar Documents at Salem |
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20079K9311984-01-20020 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 1984-01-20
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20079K9311984-01-20020 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 1984-01-20
[Table view] 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] |
Text
.
a .
=
f 00CKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO@3 00T 21 P3:30 0FFTE OF SE..::t r. :
CCCI:iT!NG & $Eray
.In th e Matter of: ) BRANC'i PUBLIC SERVICE IND GAS )
COMPANY _ ) Docket No. 50-272 (Salem Nuclear Generating ) <
Station, Unit No. 1) )
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING COMES NOW the Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Charles M. Oberly, III, and petitions the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. S2239 and 10 C.F.R. 52.714, for leave to intervene in the proceedings and, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.105, requests a hearing on the proposed issuance of an amendment to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company's (PSE&G) Operating License with regard to Inservice Integrated Leak Tests.
In support of his petition for. leave to intervene the Attorney General alleges that:
- 1. Due to the close geographical proximity of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Delaware's Attorney General has a strong, cognizable interest in protecting the safety of Delaware's citizens by ensuring that the station is properly and safely managed by PSE&G; only the Delaware River separates the Station from New Castle County, Delaware's most heavily populated county.
0310250038 831021
~
{DRADOCK 05000272 PDR
9
- 2. The Attorney General of the State of Delaware is charged by Delaware law to investigate and pursue any matter involving the public safety. 29 Del. C. S2504.
- 3. The safe operation of the Salem facility is of critical importance to the people of Delaware since a breakdown in its operation represents a direct and immediate threat to the health and safety of Delaware residents--the-safety of their homes and property.
- 4. Delaware's Attorney General should be permitted to intervene so that the interest of Delaware's citizens, which is currently unrepresented before the Commission, is adequately protect'ed in the most recent proceeding to amend PSE&G's Operating License.
- 5. If PSE&G's proposed modification of its license re-quirement is approved, it will delay the scheduled Type A test.
This test is an important safety-related test, the delay of l which directly impacts on the safety and security of Delaware's citizens. One of the conditions of each and every operating license for a nuclear generating station with water-cooled power reactors is that primary reactor containments meet containment leakage test requirements. 42 U.S.C.A. S2233; 10 C.F.R. S50.54 (o) .
. 6. The procedures for maintaining a safe nuclear facility b
are set forth in part at 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix J, which includes the requirement that " primary reactor con,tainments shall meet the containment leakage test requirements set forth in this appendix."
.=
- 7. The scheduling of inservice integrated leak tests is specifically provided for: the Type A test at issue here "shall be performed at approximately equal intervals during each 10 year period." 10 C.F.R. 50, App. J, III. D.l.
- 8. Paragraph 4.o.l.2 of Salem Unit 1 Technical Specifi-cations specifically provides that three Type A tests be con-ducted at 40 i 10 month intervals during each 10 year period.
- 9. The first Type A test for Unit 1 was completed on August 13, 1979. Therefore pursuant to the requirement that the next Type A test be conducted at a 40 i 10 month interval, the maximum outside limit for conducting the test is October of 1983.
- 11. PSE&G has known since August 13, 1979, now more than four years, that the next Type A test must be conducted between March of 1962 and October of 1983, the plus or minus 10 month period around the 40 month interval target of December 1982.
Consistent with PSE&G's documented indifference to the Commission's safety related requirements (See: May, 1983 Notice of Violation and droposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, followed by September 1983 Order Imposing Civil Penalties), PSE&G never bothered to schedule the test during the 20 month window now closing.
Rather than comply with the rules, PSE&G seeks to change them.
- 12. The interest of the State of Delaware and the public interest in maintaining the high standard of compliance which the NRC expects of its licensees, 10 C.F.R. 2, App. C at I, requires that PSE&G management meet its safety-related testing requirements in a timely fashion.
- 13. The fact that PSE&G would be required to shutdown, after 5 months of operation, in order to perform the test does not relieve PSE&G of its responsibility for meeting its Operating License's conditions. The purpose and efficacy of the rules and regulations set by the NRC as conditions for operating a nuclear generating station is destroyed when a licensee seeks to avoid a safety test for financial reasons.
- 14. The lengthy shutdown following the February 22 and 25, 1983 events was a result in part of " insufficient management involvement in establishing a safety perspective, in requiring attention to detail, and in ensuring procedural adherence" as the NRC stated in its May 25, 1983 letter to PSE&G accompanying the Notice of proposed imposition of maximum civil penalties.
Those penalties were subsequently imposed in order to ensure that in the future PSE&G would give full attention to safety considerations. Within months of being fined, PSE&G is again placing safety considerations second to financial considerations by seeking to delay a safety related test which it could have scheduled and completed at any time during the 20 month period from March, 1982 to October, 1983.
- 15. Permitting PSE&G to delay the requisite timing of the Type A test based on the earlier shutdown, in effect, allows PSE&G to benefit from its indifference and the negligence of its management which lead to the events of February 22 and 25, 1983 and PSE&G's failure to schedule and conduct the Type A tests in a timely fashion.
O b'
lo. The last-minute application by PSE&G to delay a scheduled safety-related test reflects PSE&G's continuing failure to establish a safety perspective, to pay attention to detail or to adhere to established procedural requirements.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays tnat this Motion for Intervention to be granted and the cyplication of PSE&G for an amendment -
to its Operating License with regard to Inservice Integrated Leak Rate tests be denied. In the alternative, Petitioner requests that a hearing be scheduled forthwith, prior to the issuance of any amendment to PSE&G's Operating License.
Respectfully submitted CHARLES M. OBE RLY , III Attorney General of the State of Delaware
% . L By:jFre,d S. Silverman State Solicitor
- s. b Carol E. Delaney Deputy Attorney General Dated: October 21, 1983 Service of any documents on Attorney General Charles M. Oberly, III can be made by serving the document (s) on Fred S. Silverman, State Solicitor, Department of Justice, State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, 2 Delaware 19801.
_-p _ . . . _ , .
e COCKEIE[
USEC AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 13 OCT 21 P3:30 0FICE Cf Sb .t; STATE OF DELAWARE : 00CKETIN3 & SEgn
- SS. BRANCH NEW CASTLE COUNTY :
Beverly Danish, being first duly sworn, deposes and says J
that:
- 1. She is a secretary in the Delaware Attorney General's office.
- 2. That on October 21, 1983, she caused to be mailed by first class mail, postage pre-paid, a copy of Delaware's Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing to:
Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulartory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
! and
- Conner & Wetterhahn
- Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue I Washington, D.C. 20006 t M 'l / 0 42 J e' e SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the 21st of October, I
L 1983.
ra.C , d- ,
,/ Notary'Pul/lic I '
I I .__