|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARRC-99-0172, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Ep.Stockpile of Ki Not Effective as Immediate & Suppl Measure of Protection1999-08-24024 August 1999 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Ep.Stockpile of Ki Not Effective as Immediate & Suppl Measure of Protection ML20207E4181999-05-17017 May 1999 Comment Supporting Recommended Improvements to Oversight Processes for Nuclear Power Reactors Noted in SECY-99-007A ML20206G3351999-05-0303 May 1999 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Proposed Revs to Fee schedules;100% Fee recovery,FY99.Util Fully Endorses Comments Prepared & Submitted on Behalf of Commercial Nuclear Power Industry by NEI & Submits Addl Comments RC-99-0088, Comment on Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e).Believes That Inclusion of Statement in DG, Unnecessary1999-04-28028 April 1999 Comment on Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e).Believes That Inclusion of Statement in DG, Unnecessary RC-99-0060, Comment on Proposed Rule PRM 50-64 Re Joint & Several Liability of non-operating co-owners of Nuclear Plants.Sce&G Endorses Comments Submitted by Winston & Strawn & NEI1999-03-22022 March 1999 Comment on Proposed Rule PRM 50-64 Re Joint & Several Liability of non-operating co-owners of Nuclear Plants.Sce&G Endorses Comments Submitted by Winston & Strawn & NEI RC-98-0230, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes, Tests & Experiments1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes, Tests & Experiments RC-98-0224, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Encourages NRC to Continue Cooperative Effort with NEI & Nuclear Industry to Focus on Risk Significant Issues1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Encourages NRC to Continue Cooperative Effort with NEI & Nuclear Industry to Focus on Risk Significant Issues RC-98-0181, Comment Supporting Comments Submitted by NEI Re NRC Proposed Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial NPPs (Irap)1998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment Supporting Comments Submitted by NEI Re NRC Proposed Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial NPPs (Irap) RC-98-0176, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-8022, Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection1998-09-28028 September 1998 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-8022, Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection RC-98-0169, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Proposed Improvements to Current Reporting Requirements Would Have Significant & Positive Impact on Regulatory Burden to VC Summer Nuclear Station1998-09-18018 September 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Proposed Improvements to Current Reporting Requirements Would Have Significant & Positive Impact on Regulatory Burden to VC Summer Nuclear Station RC-98-0165, Comment on Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Where Evacuations Are Performed,Ki Would Not Add Any Measures of Safety to Approach & Could Complicate Er1998-09-14014 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Where Evacuations Are Performed,Ki Would Not Add Any Measures of Safety to Approach & Could Complicate Er RC-98-0022, Comment Opposing Proposed GL 98-XX, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps1998-02-0202 February 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed GL 98-XX, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps RC-97-0279, Comment Opposing Draft RG DG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in Npps1997-12-0808 December 1997 Comment Opposing Draft RG DG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in Npps RC-97-0243, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rule Change to Incorporate IEEE 603 Standard1997-11-26026 November 1997 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rule Change to Incorporate IEEE 603 Standard RC-97-0219, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Initial Operator Exam Requirements1997-10-24024 October 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Initial Operator Exam Requirements RC-97-0134, Comment Supporting NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes, Tests or Experiments)1997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Supporting NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes, Tests or Experiments) ML20148N0861997-06-19019 June 1997 Comment Opposing NRC Draft Suppl 1 to Bulletin 96-001 Which Proposes Actions to Be Taken by Licensees of W & B&W Designed Plants to Ensure Continued Operability of CR RC-97-0096, Comment Discussing Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements1997-05-0202 May 1997 Comment Discussing Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements RC-97-0055, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Loss of Reactor Coolant Inventory & Associated Potential for Loss of Emergency Mitigation Functions While in Shuddown Condition1997-03-12012 March 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Loss of Reactor Coolant Inventory & Associated Potential for Loss of Emergency Mitigation Functions While in Shuddown Condition ML20136H9531997-03-0505 March 1997 Comment Opposing Draft Regulatory Guide 1068, Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants RC-97-0024, Comment on Proposed Generic Communication, Effectiveness of Ultrasonic Testing Sys in Inservice Inspection Programs. GL Seems to Approach Mandating Implementation of App Viii Requirements1997-02-25025 February 1997 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication, Effectiveness of Ultrasonic Testing Sys in Inservice Inspection Programs. GL Seems to Approach Mandating Implementation of App Viii Requirements ML20135C4911997-02-17017 February 1997 Comment on NRC Draft NUREG 1560, IPE Program:Perspectives on Reactor Safety & Plant Performance;Vols 1 & 2. Comment Provided to Enhance Accuracy of Nureg,Per Request ML20113C1881996-06-24024 June 1996 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors RC-96-0154, Comment on DRG,DG-5007,re Proposed Rev 3 to RG 5.441996-06-17017 June 1996 Comment on DRG,DG-5007,re Proposed Rev 3 to RG 5.44 ML20096F1991996-01-15015 January 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Ki as Insurance Against Nuclear Accidents RC-95-0236, Comment Opposing Draft RG DG-1043,Proposed Rev 2 to RG 1.49, NPP Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Exams1995-09-13013 September 1995 Comment Opposing Draft RG DG-1043,Proposed Rev 2 to RG 1.49, NPP Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Exams RC-95-0178, Comment on Proposed Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style1995-06-28028 June 1995 Comment on Proposed Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style ML20086A8611995-06-13013 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control ML20083N4761995-04-26026 April 1995 Comment Re Proposed GL Concerning Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of SR Power Operated Gate Valves.Believes That Full Backfit Analysis Should Be Performed to Enable Utils to Perform cost-benefit Analysis to Be Utilized RC-95-0009, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR21 Re inter-utility Transfer1995-01-0909 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR21 Re inter-utility Transfer ML20077M7131995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations.Believes That Pr Totally Unnecessary & Represents Addl Regulatory Burden Not Fully Cost Justified RC-94-0292, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Frequency of Medical Exams for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment. Util Agrees That Frequency of Medical Exams Should Be Determined by Physician1994-11-11011 November 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Frequency of Medical Exams for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment. Util Agrees That Frequency of Medical Exams Should Be Determined by Physician ML20072B1771994-07-29029 July 1994 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-9-2 to Change Rules Re Public Access to Info,Per 10CFR9 ML20071H4111994-07-0606 July 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Change to Frequency of Independent Reviews & Audits of Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Program ML20071H1091994-06-22022 June 1994 Comment Supporting PRM 50-60 Re Proposed Changes to Frequency W/Which Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of EP Program from Annually to Biennially RC-94-0107, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Change to 10CFR50.55 That Would Include Containment Requirements in Inservice Insp Programs1994-04-21021 April 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Change to 10CFR50.55 That Would Include Containment Requirements in Inservice Insp Programs RC-94-0057, Comment Supporting NUREG-1488, Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard Estimates for 69 NPP Sites East of Rocky Mountains1994-02-28028 February 1994 Comment Supporting NUREG-1488, Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard Estimates for 69 NPP Sites East of Rocky Mountains RC-93-0314, Comment Supporting NUMARC Position on Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at Nuclear Power Plants1993-12-28028 December 1993 Comment Supporting NUMARC Position on Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at Nuclear Power Plants ML20046D5271993-07-30030 July 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR55 ML20045G8541993-06-22022 June 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Provides Recommendations RC-93-0127, Comment Concurring W/Numarc Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp1993-05-21021 May 1993 Comment Concurring W/Numarc Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp ML20118B8431992-09-29029 September 1992 Comments on Review of Reactor Licensee Reporting Requirements ML20095L2681992-04-27027 April 1992 Comments on NUREG-1449, Shutdown & Low Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Us. Endorses NUMARC Comments ML20096A4541992-04-27027 April 1992 Comment Endorsing Comments Made by NUMARC Re Proposed Rule Misc (92-1), Conversion to Metric Sys. Concurs W/Nrc Position That Staff Will Not Allow Licensees to Convert Sys of Units Where Conversion Might Be Detrimental to Health ML20096D4661992-04-27027 April 1992 Comments Supporting Proposed Rule Re Conversion to Metric Sys ML20079E0981991-09-20020 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure, & Draft Reg Guide DG-1008 ML20073B2021991-04-15015 April 1991 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50.55a Endorsing Later Addenda & Editions of ASME Code Sections III & XI W/Noted Exceptions.Util Also Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20070D9091991-02-21021 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Rev to 10CFR73.1.Util Disagrees W/Petitioners Contention That Purported Increased Terrorist Threats Necessitate Need to Revise Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage ML20024G0211990-12-0303 December 1990 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Response Data Sys (Erds).Nrc Intends to Make ERDS Info Available to State Govts ML20058G5721990-10-24024 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Programs 1999-08-24
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065B1961982-09-10010 September 1982 Response in Opposition to B Bursey Requests to Reopen Record to Conduct Further Proceedings & for Stay.Bursey Fails to Make Strong Showing of Likelihood of Prevailing on Merits or of Irreparable Injury ML20063M3161982-09-0707 September 1982 Responds to Aslab 820824 Order to Show Cause Why Applicant Exceptions Should Be Considered.Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata Effect of Erroneous Findings of Fact Constrain Applicants in Future.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063G9931982-08-26026 August 1982 Supplemental Filing on Motion to Reopen Record & Conduct Further Hearings on Qc.Requests Leave to File Response to Applicant & NRC Submissions ML20063A4881982-08-20020 August 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 820720 Partial Initial Decision & 820804 Suppl on Seismic Issues.Aslb Erred in Concluding That Applicant Ground Motion Model Unreliable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062F7681982-08-11011 August 1982 Response Joining Applicant 820730 Request for Reconsideration of Certain Passages of ASLB 820720 Partial Initial Decision.Suggestion That Accelerometer Records Not Reported on Timely Basis Erroneous.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062K8041982-08-10010 August 1982 Motion to Reopen Record & Conduct Further Proceedings Re QA Deficiencies & Uncorrected safety-related Defects.Ol Should Be Denied Until Deficiencies Corrected.Aslb 820804 Order Authorizing Operation Should Be Stayed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20071K7651982-07-30030 July 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of Portion of ASLB 820720 Partial Initial Decision Re NRC 811020 Notification to ASLB of Peak Recorded Accelerations Associated w/791016 Seismic Event. ASLB Misapprehended Circumstances.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20058D9251982-07-26026 July 1982 Motion for Extension of Time to File Exceptions to ASLB 820720 Partial Initial Decision on Seismic Issues,Until 820820 or When Exceptions to Balance of Initial Decision Due.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052C1611982-04-29029 April 1982 Response Opposing B Bursey 820414 Motion for Admission of New Contentions.Motion in Fact Is Motion to Reopen Record & Fails to Meet Stds for Reopening Record &/Or for Admitting Late Filed Contentions ML20052D5031982-04-26026 April 1982 Response Opposing Fairfield United Action 820419 Petition to Intervene.Petitioner Failed to Meet Both Burden Re Late Intervention & to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052A3661982-04-21021 April 1982 Response Supporting NRC 820407 Motion to Discuss B Bursey Contention A2 Re Financial Qualifications.Commission Eliminated Subj from Pending OL Proceedings.Applicants Fall within Definition of Electric Util.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054E1461982-04-21021 April 1982 Response Supporting NRC 820407 Motion to Dismiss Bursey Contention A2 Re Financial Qualifications.Commission Elimination of Financial Qualifications in Pending OL Proceedings Renders Contention Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049J6651982-03-11011 March 1982 Response Opposing B Bursey 820224 Motion to Reopen for Admission of New Contention.Intervenor Fails to Satisfy Requirements for Reopening Record & for Admitting Late Filed Contention ML20039B1491981-12-18018 December 1981 Reply Opposing B Bursey 811208 Motion to Reopen Record. Issue or Arrangements W/Local Officials Re Siren Testing Is Beyond Scope of Intervenor Contention A8 on Emergency Planning.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M6231981-12-0808 December 1981 Motion to Reopen Record on Emergency Contention.Request Timely Since Concerns Have Developed Since Close of Record & Are Significant Safety Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049A8361981-09-30030 September 1981 Motion to Schedule Concluding Session of Hearing for Wk of 811019,in Order to Avoid Further Delay.Const Nearly Complete & Every Wk Is Crucial.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20010E3911981-09-0101 September 1981 Response in Opposition to B Bursey 810826 Motion for Time Extension to Submit Reply Brief & Response to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Extension Should Have Been Requested Earlier.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010E4161981-08-26026 August 1981 Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Applicant & NRC Briefs on Kaku Testimony & to Applicants Finding of Facts & Conclusions of Law.Time Available Inadequate Due to Need for Expert Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20005B8311981-08-21021 August 1981 Petition for Review of NRC 810626 Order.Commission Failed to Institute Proceedings Per Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Petition Submitted in Order to Preserve Right to Review in Event That NRC Does Not Grant Petition for Reconsideration ML20010A7211981-08-0707 August 1981 Brief on Emergency Planning Contention & Kaku Supporting Testimony.State & Local Officials' Ignorance & Misunderstanding of Potential Impacts of Accidents Threatens Ultimate Adequacy of Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010A7201981-08-0707 August 1981 Memorandum on Consideration of Accidents in Emergency Planning.Traces Commission Consideration of Class 9 Accidents & WASH-1400 Accident Consequence Scenarios. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010A7111981-08-0707 August 1981 Motion to Exclude M Kaku Testimony Re Emergency Procedures & Accident Impacts at Facility.Testimony Relates to Matters Beyond Scope of Admitted Contention A8.Even If Relevant, Amend Is Untimely.Related Correspondence ML20009F2231981-07-28028 July 1981 Response Opposing Receipt of Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (Sierra) 810721 Papers Re ALAB-642.Sierra Statements Add Nothing of Substance to Nor Aid Commission Decision Re Petition for Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009C9081981-07-20020 July 1981 Amended Petition for Reconsideration of 810710 Order Pursuant to 810706 Petition for Rehearing.Commission Erred in Considering Alleged Significant Changes in Isolation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009A4381981-07-0909 July 1981 Request for Extension of Time Until at Least 810731 for Util Reply to Petition for Reconsideration.Other Response Dates Should Be Adjusted Accordingly.W/Certificate of Service ML20005B3821981-07-0606 July 1981 Petition for Rehearing on Reconsideration of Commission 810626 Order Denying Central Electric Power Cooperative Petition for Antitrust Review.Commission Erred in Findings of Insufficient Substance.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005A3571981-06-26026 June 1981 Opposes Fairfield United Action (Fua) Petition for Review of ALAB-642 Re Late Intervention in Licensing Proceeding, Per 10CFR2.786(b).FUA Has Presented No Question Which Would Warrant Review of Denial.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350F0671981-06-16016 June 1981 Application for Stay of ALAB-642,reversing LBP-81-11.Stay Should Be Granted So Fairfield United Action May Go Forward in 810622 Evidentiary Hearing,Pending Commission Decision on Merits of Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009D1411981-06-15015 June 1981 Request to File Statement Supporting Fairfield United Action Petition to Intervene.Participation Will Contribute to Record & Will Not Unduly Delay Proceedings ML19350E3761981-06-15015 June 1981 Petition for Commission Review of ASLAP Decision Reversing ASLB Order Granting Fairfield United Action (Fua) Petition to Intervene.Order Admitting Fua Should Be Entered. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009D2041981-06-15015 June 1981 Statement Supporting Fua Petition to Intervene.Possible Delay Does Not Lessen Importance of Full Consideration of Issues Raised by Intervenor to Record & ASLB Decision. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19351A1901981-06-12012 June 1981 Answer Opposing Fairfield United Action (Fua) 810605 Motion for Stay of 810601 Decision.Strong Showing Not Made That Fua Likely to Prevail on Merits.Granting Stay Would Be Prejudicial to Other Parties.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004F6171981-06-12012 June 1981 Answer Opposing Fairfield United Action (Fua) 810605 Motion for Stay of ALAB-642.Not Shown That Fua Would Prevail on Merits of Petition for Review.No Irreparable Injury Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004D2581981-06-0505 June 1981 Application for Stay of ALAB-642,reversing & Remanding LBP-81-11,denying Fairfield United Action (Fua) Petition to Intervene.Petition for Review to Be Filed W/Commission.Fua Likely to Prevail on Merits ML20004D4611981-06-0202 June 1981 Response Opposing NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 2,3 & 4(b).Certificate of Svc Encl ML19346A1661981-05-27027 May 1981 Response Supporting NRC 810507 Motion for Summary Disposition of Bursey Contentions 2,3 & 4(b).Corrections & Clarifications Re NRC Supplemental SER Chapter 20 & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004C4471981-05-27027 May 1981 Response Opposing Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Ba Bursey Contention A10.Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists as to Whether Listed Repts Underestimate Risks of Low Level Radiation.Statement of Matl Facts Encl ML20004C8391981-05-27027 May 1981 Response Opposing Ba Bursey 810526 Request for Extension Until 810615 to File Answers to NRC & Applicant Motions for Summary Disposition.No Good Cause Shown.Lists Conditions If Request Is Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004C4491981-05-27027 May 1981 Response Opposing NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Ba Bursey Contention 4b.Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists Re Appropriate Date to Require Continuance of Seismic Monitoring Activities.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20004C4421981-05-27027 May 1981 Response Opposing NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Ba Bursey Contention A2.Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists as to Whether Applicants Have Financial Qualifications to Operate & Decommission Facility Safely ML20004C5761981-05-22022 May 1981 Response to Fairfield United Action Request for Oral Argument.Applicant Does Not Object to Request.Alternatively, Requests Leave to File Brief Response on Expedited Schedule. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004B6281981-05-22022 May 1981 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Fairfield United Action 810512 Motion for Continuance.Fua Has Shown No Basis for Altering Current Scheduling of Proceeding ML20004B6411981-05-22022 May 1981 Objections to ASLB 810514 Remainder of Order Following Fourth Prehearing Conference.Objects to Failure to Carry Out ASLB 801230 Sanctions for Bursey Failure to Provide Specific Info.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004B6441981-05-22022 May 1981 Response Supporting Fairchild United Action 810512 Request for Continuance Until 810724.Continuance Needed Due to Overlap of PSC of Sc & ASLB Proceedings for Wks of 810713-24 ML20004C5191981-05-21021 May 1981 Motion for Continuance Until 810605 to Respond to Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 3 & 10 (Applicant Motion) & Contentions 2 & 3 (NRC Motion).Affidavits Opposing Motions Are Being Obtained ML19347F5031981-05-13013 May 1981 Updated Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition Re Intervenor,Ba Bursey, Contention A10 on Health Effects.Population Doses & Health Effects Conservatively Estimated ML19347F5001981-05-13013 May 1981 Updated Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists to Be Heard Re Intervenor,Ba Bursey,Contention A10. Proposed Evidentiary Support for Intervenor Bursey Indicates That Low Level Radiation Causes Cancer & Genetic Damage ML19345H3601981-05-12012 May 1981 Motion for Continuance of Evidentiary Hearings Scheduled for 810713-24 Until After PSC of Sc Hearings on Util Application for Adjustments in Schedules,Tariffs & Contracts Completed. Simultaneous Litigation Would Prejudice Intervenor Rights ML19345H3641981-05-12012 May 1981 Motion for Continuance of Hearing Until After 810724. Simultaneous Scheduling of ASLB & PSC of Sc Hearings Would Be Prejudicial to Intervenors.Aslb Orders Take Precedence Over PSC of Sc Under Supremacy Clause.W/Certificate of Svc ML19345H3571981-05-11011 May 1981 Response Opposing Applicants' 810508 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 810430 Order Admitting Fairfield United Action (Fua) & Motion for Expedited Scheduling.No Good Cause Shown. Expedited Hearing Would Be Burdensome & Prejudicial to Fua 1982-09-07
[Table view] |
Text
-
+ i - .
~~ - *i MATED ConnCSPONDrxcn Date: August 7, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NN g JLJ j BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENFING BOAF .
g'liUG11193g{9 k'%up In the Satter of: , h 7 6, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND ) Docket No. 39 GAS COMPANY, et al. ) co
) 4 (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )
Station, Unit 1) ) g
{ AUG10ggg, {
APPLICANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE .g eay TESTIMONY OF DR. KAKU ON CONTENTION ~A8 *
% fg s
Introduction g C The Board has requested the parties to brief the matter of the admission into evidence (or exclusion therefrom) of the amende'H "Prefiled Testimony of Dr. Michio Kaku Concerning Emer-gency Procedures and Accident Impacts at the Virgil C. Summer s
Plant" (Tr. 3754, 3761). Applicants hereby move to exclude the proferred testimony and set forth the points and authorities relied on.
Summary of Argument There are at least seven reasons why the amended prefiled l
testimony should not be received. Some of these reasons have I already been rejected by the Board in its "Re?nainder of Order l Following Fourth Prehearing Conference" dated May 13, 1981 and its " Order (Denying Objections to Prehearing Conference Order)" dated June 19, 1981. Others have been argued on the record but have apparently, thus far, been unpersuasive to the Board or considered premature pending submission of further 8108120090 810807-PDR ADOCK 05000395 .f, ga o PDR gg i
I
evidence. Applicants not only preserve their objections but seek reconsideration in these instances. Briefly stated, the reasons for exclusion are:
- 1. The testimony relates to matters beyond the scope of admitted concention A8 in this proceeding.
- 2. If the contention has been deemed amended to conform to the testimony, the amendment is untimely and no good cause has been shown. Moreover, such amendment would be untimely under the specific order of the Board regarding the submission of " Class 9" or "TMI" contentions. (Memo-randum and Order December 30, 1980 at 5-6, paragraphs 6-7).
- 3. Whether the testimony is deemed to be within tbs admitted contention or an amended contention, the summary of testi-mony was untimely, having been due by January 31, 1981.
(December 30, 1980 Memorandum and Order at p.2, paragraph 1). It was not submitted in its original form until April 7,.1981 and in its present form until July 1, 1981.
- 4. The testimony hinges on either a challenge to the NRC regulations governing emergency core cooling systems or a new contention regarding compliance with or the adequacy of NRC requirements for procedures, administrative controls, and training to guard against premature termination of ECCS when needed. (See December 30, 1980 Memorandum and Order, paragraphs 2, 6, 7).
- 5. The testimony necessarily challennes the Commission's
emergency planning regulations in 10 C.F.R. 550.47 and Appendix E.
- 6. There is no foundation for the testimony insofar as it contains assertions of facts and opinions regarding the timing or nature of actions that would be taken in implementation of applicant's or offsite agencies' emergency response plans and regarding events that would occur offsite; these portions of the testimony should be stricken in any event.
- 7. The testimony regarding the course of a postulated accident and a release from the plant is replete with opinion on matters as to which the voir dire, the insti-tutional expertise of the NRC, and the attached affidavit 1/
of Dr. Hochreiter reveal Dr. Kaku is not an expert."
Background
In striking the original version of Dr. Kaku's testimony (Tr. 1727), the Chairman observed that it did not appear that there was anything in Dr. Kaku's testimony that related to emergency planning within the ten-mile zone (Tr. 1728). That observation remains valid, we think; changing the cover sheet did not change the content of the testimony. Judge Hooper invited the intervenor to point to specific conditions within the ten-mile zone affected by Dr. Kaku's accident sequence (Tr. 1729). The intervenor's reply was not responsive Orr. 1729-30).
1/ In addition, the references to ATWS must be stricken as covered by summary decision. Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition, June 19, 1981).
. .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.a
Further, the Chairman invited Mr. Bursey to explain how probability would have an effect on implementation of the emergency plan. (Tr. 1730). The reply was again unrespon-sive. The intervenor characterized the purpose of the testimony merely in terms of the l'acx of comprehension of accident scenarios by state and local officials who might be called upon to respond in the event of an emergency.
(Tr. 1732-35).
On July 1, 1981, intervenor Bursey moved to reconsider the Board's ruling and distributed an amended cover sheet and first page of Dr. Kaku's prefiled testimony (Tr. 2101-2102). As described by intervenor Bursey, the thrust of the amendments was to avoid conflict with the regulations and to address more directly impact in the ten-mile zone. Judge Grossman proposed to stand 'lar the previous ruling but to allow an offer of proof .
l with respect to the revised testimony of Dr. Kaku. (Tr. 2102-2108) .
The matter was again taken up on July 2,1981. (Tr. 2307-2320).
Judge Grossman indicated that although objections to Dr. Kaku's testimony had been based on his lack of qualifications, lack of relevancy to the admitted contention, and conflict with the regulations, the Board had not based its ruling on either Dr. Kaku's qualifications or upon enlargement of the scope of the contention, but on conflict with'10 C.F.R. 550.47, in that if Dr. Kaku's scenario were accepted it would conflict with the ten-mile emergency planning zone. (Tr. 2307-2808).
I At this point, intervenor Bursey shifted ground and argued l
s- ,
that the purpose of Dr. Kaku's testimony would be to "take the ten-mile zone as a given, take the probabilities as shown in the FES as a given, and lay the groundwork f,r an under-standing of the radioactive inventory and the result of an accident" (Tr. 2309), specifically, an accident of the nature postulated in Table 6.2 of the FES. (Tr. 2310). Intervenor Bursey went on to argue that Dr. Kaku could address how the accidental release could occur, the rapidity with which it ,
could occur, what the radionuclide inventory of the release would be, and (inconsistently) how frequently such releases would' occur within the ten-mile zone. Intervenor Bursey, argued that such testimony would be laid against the testimony of local and state officials with regard to their response capabi-lity to adequately and safely implement the rtmergency planning i
I procedures inside the ten-mile zone. (Tr. 2309-2311). -
The Staff's ensuing argument emphasized that the conse-quences of large core melt accidents were already considered by the Commission in formulating its emergency planning pro-cedures. (Tr . 2311-2314). In effect, the Commission considered accidents which would cause consequences which would warrant
! evacuation outside the ten-mile zone to be of such low probab-l l ility that emergency planning requirements need not be developed with a view to an accident of such magnitude. (See Attachment B).
Applicants urged that in any event the proposed testimony would not constitute a prima facie showing of special circum-stances peculiar to this application which would invoke i
certification to the Commission of the question whecher different emergency planning rules should be followed in this case because of some special, demonstrated, credible propensity of this plant for accidents of greater frequency or larger magnitude than already considered by the Commission in formu-lating its emergency planning regulations. (Tr. 2314-2315.
See also Tr. 3317-3319, 3580-82). Judge Grossman pointed out that he understood Dr. Kaku's testimony to lay a foundation for a large inventory release and the rapidity with which the release f
would reach the population even within the ten-mile zone, but that the flaw in the testimony was that such postulated accident would necessarily implicate areas outside the ten-mile zone.
(Tr. 2315-2316). .
Intervenor Bursey shifted ground again and indicated that l the purpose of the testimony was to educate people living in the area to the necessity of taking prompt protective action when instructed to do so because of the potential effects on them if they did not do so. (Tr. 2319-2320). Judge Grossman pointed out that the purpose of the proceeding was not primarily public education but to hear relevant evidence on contested issues. (Tr. 2320).
l l
i Y
- .e. -~c ,-.---.n - - - - - - , , - , . . - - - - - , -_- -
P *O It eventuated that the Chairman had understood that Staff and Applicant were going to provide evidence on a specific accident scenario, whereas it had been argued that the Com-mission had already considered a fu'11 range of accident scenarios and decided that compliance with the rules it was promulgating would cover the .ange of credible accidents. (Tr. 3584-86).
The Chairman indicated his preference for a specific scenario.
(Tr. 3586; 3592; 3594). The Staff pointed out that the May 1, 1981 exercise was based on an accident scenario (Tr. 3595).
After further discussion, Mr. Bursey shifted ground another time and indicated tha- th'e testimony would permit argument as to such matters as the appropriate number of " hospital beds" (Tr. 3599). Following voir dire and further argument, the Board took the offer of the testimony under advisement pending briefing (Tr. 3761).
Argument
- 1. Scope of Contention Interven.ir Bursey's admitted contention A8 regarding emer-gency plans is a narrow one. As set forth in the Board's April 24, 1978 " Order Admitting Contentions", it states "The Applicant has made inadequate pre-parations for the implementation of his emergency plan in those areas where the assistance and cooperation of state and local agencies are required."
The basis and context of this contention is set forth in the transcript of the March 30, 1978 Prehearing Conference,
_. . .. _ l
, e ,
in the stipulation entered into voluntarily by Mr. Bursey with the NRC Staff (Tr. 46; page 8 of the stipulation; see' also Tr. pp. 32-33, 147-150). The stipulation explicitly recognizes that contentions cannot be amended without the approval of the Board on the basis of a showing of good cause for a lata-filed contention under 10 C.F.R. 52.714.
(Tr. 37; stipulation p.2, paragraph 6; see'also Tr. 32).
Ehen Mr. Bursey later sought to take an expansive view of contention A8, he was admonished by the Board that the contention related to implementation of Applicant's plan, not the plan itself or its basis (Deposition of B. A. Bursey.
August 3, 1981 Tr. 163-165).
The contention was never amended to permit a challenge to the emergency planning regulations based on the theory that -
emergency plans meeting'those regulations would nonetheless be inadequate to cope with certain accidents of larger conse-l quence or greater' probability than assigned by the Commission in formulating its amended regulations.
As will be observed, the contention as admitted addresses the arrangements made by SCE&G with state and' local officials.
It does not address or allege that there is any regulatory requirement for Applicant or state and local officials to plan for a particular accident. (In f act , for emergency drills l
and exercises, actions within the plant, notifications, and so I on are based on a suitable scenario, as was done in the k _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _
1 1
May 1, 1981 exercise; see'pages 3-5 of Report No. 50-395/81-09 attached to Mr. T. Kevern's testimony-following Tr. 3281).
Nor does the admirted contention encompass the various argu-ments advanced by Mr. Bursey (as recounted above in the Back-ground section) in support of the relation of the testimony to l the issues in the proceeding. ,
2.and 3. Timeliness Dr. Kaku's name first appeared in Mr. Bursey's untimely February 23, 1981 filing. Mr. Bursey had previously been admonished as to his emergency planning witnesses that he could not expand the list of witnesses after August 2-3, 1978.
(August 2,1978 Prehearing at Tr. 225-228). The submission of a summary of Dr. Kaku's testimony at the April 7-8, 1981 Pre-hearing was also untimely under this Board's December 30, 1980 Prehearing Conference Order in providing a summary of Dr. Kaku's .
testimony and in seeking to raise a TMI or Class 9 contention (December 30, 1980 Prehearing Conference Order at pp. 5-6, paragraphs 6 and 7). The testimony in its original form was l not submitted until April 7, 1981 (Tr. 408) and in its present I form until July 1, 1981 (Tr . 2101-02).
- 4. ECCS and TMI Requirements The accident scenario given in paragraph 14 of Dr. Kaku's amended prefiled testimony (p. 12) assumes ECCS failure either because it cannot refill the vessel faster tnan the evacuation of the vessel through the pipe break or because of operator error.
Pages 1 and 2 of the testimony seem to assert in part lack of compliance with NRC's ECCS criteria, and in part l
defects in the criteria themselves, but are without foun-dation and speculative. ECCS testing and computer modelling are alleged defective at pages 6 and 7. These arguments seem to challenge the regulations themselves, and are merely argu-mentative, speculative and unfounded opinions. Such a "back door" expansion of'an emergency planning contention into a contention directed at compliance with ECCS criteria or challenging the ECCS regulations ought not to be entertained without the necessary showing of good cause. In the case of challenges to the regulations, no prima facie' case is made out such as would warrant certification under 10 C.F.R. S2.758.
The Commission has relied upon generic actions by the NRC Staff to minimize the potential for premature termination of ECCS through operator action in another proceeding. In the 2/ '
TMI-l restart pr meading,- the Commission was asked to l
respond to two certified questions. Its answer to'the first such question is relevant here. That question was:
"1. Whether the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.44 should be waived or an exception made thereto in this proceeding where a prima facie showing has been made that hydrogen gas generation during the TMI-2 accident was well in excess of the amount required under 10 C.F.R. 50.44 as a design basis for the post-accident com-bustion gas control system for TMI-1." (11 NRC at 674).
We,can restate that question for purposes of the present discussion by replacing the first reference to 10 C.F.R. 50.44 with a reference to 10 C.F.R. 50.47 and Appendix E, and adding
-2/ Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear
! Station, Unit No. 1) CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980).
l i
I l _ _ _ . - _ _ .__ _ _ _ . . - - __ - -
l I
to the second reference to 10 C.F.R. 50.44 a reference to
- 50. 46 and Appendix 'K) .
~
10 C.F.R. The same reasoning would seem to apply. That reasoning was:
"We are of course aware that the Three Mile Island accident resulted in hydrogen being generated far in excess ~of the . . .
design basis assumptions . . . This was
, because the operator interfered with actual ECCS operation with the result that the j safety system did not operate as designed - - -
However, this is a safety issue that is not peculiar to Three Mile Island Unit 1 -- it is an issue that is common to all light water power reactors because operators i generally have the capability to interfere with automatic ECCS operation. The proper response to this issue is not waiver of the rule under 10 C.F.R. 2.758 because this case presents no special circumstances, but
~
rulemaking to either amend or suspend the
- present rule. The Commission is planning a broad rulemaking proceeding that will address the general question of possible safety -
features to deal with degraded core conditions.'"
(11 NRC at 675) .
I Having answered the other certified question (which allowed hydrogen generation to be litigated under Part 100),
the Commission went on to make this observation about operator action:
"[A]fter th'e Three Mile Island Accident, the Staff has given licensees explicit instructions not to turn off prematurely the ECCS system.
In our view this instruction. . . serves as a basis to sustain the present hydrogen generation assumptions of 50.44 at least for the interim until the degraded core rulemaking can be completed." (11 NRC at 676).
Two conclusions pertinent here can be drawn from the TMI-l excerpts just quoted. The TMI accident is not ipso facto a basis for a "special circumstances" finding as l to the inadequacy of Part 50 requirements,first,non performance or
-r , 2-,-w---e., , e~y -.'5__m. .w..#-__,__.ym._,__m .,,_,----vw,,m-,.,,,,,m _____--.,m_ --_-_w.,-mm_m.m._-.-.,.#.__ --,._,-e..,_ --
1 ECCS because of. operator inter.ference and, second, by analogy emergency planning requirements; the Commission considers the former matter a generic one-for the degraded core rule-making and.its reasoning would apply equally to the latter, since ECCS failure or termination is necessary to any release in Dr. Kaku's scenario. Of course, there is no foundation given for Dr. Kaku's postulated operator's interference other than the TMI instance.
- 5. Challenge to Emergency Planning Regulations This fundamental objection to the proposed testimony has been covered in the arguments made on the record and summarized in the " Background" section above. We would add the following.
On its face, the amended prefiled testimony goes beyond the contention and challenges the Commission's regulations. -
l On the first page thereof Lla) , .it states that its purpose is "to describe the nature and probability of a major accident at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station and the effect of such an accident on the Applicant's ability to implement its emergency plan consistent with Commission regulations, particularly where the assistance and cooperation of state and local agencies are required. I am convinced that the Applicants would be unable to implement their emergency plan or comply l with Commission regulations in the event of a major nuclear accident as I describe in this testimony."
There is no requirement in NRC emergency planning regulLtions for the Applicant or the Staff or this Board to consider the nature or probability of a major accident in
. - . _ . . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ _ , _ . . . - , __ _ . _ . . . _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _
1 assessing the adequacy of emergency planning' arrangements.
Rather, we' demonstrate or assess compliance with the require-ments of 10 C.F.R. S50.47 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E.
That is not to say that accidents,.even very large ones, are not considered at all in emergency plans. Such were consider-ed by the Commission and the task force on whose work it relied in formulating the requirements and in Guidance to Licensees, State and Local Planners (NUREG-0654 ) . (See Applicant's Memorandum on Consideration of Accidents in Emergency Planning, attached hereto as Attachment B). If the requirements are satisfied, then the range of accidents considered by the Commission as those for which advance emergency planning should reasonably provide must be taken to have been provided for. Dr. Kaku's testimony does- not state whether' or not the accident scenario it postulates is within the range already ,
considered by the Commission, but Dr. Kaku characterized it on voir dire as a "PWR 3". (Tr . 3734, 3740-3741). That characterization is a term of art which refers to WASH 1400.
(The term is defined in S2.2 at page 2-2 of Appendix VI to WASE 1400. A summary of the probabilities and releases considered is given in Table VI, 2-1). Whether the scenario is a PWR 3 (in which case it was considered by the Commission) or another more severe event considered by the Commission, or an even more severe event not considered by the Commission as a reasonable basis for emergency planning, such scenario is not relevant to the contention and may be'a challenge to the regulations. (See Attachment B. )
.- s
- 6. Foundation as to Implementation of Emergency Plans Dr. K-ku admitted on voir. dire to a lack' of familiarity with local demographics, site, the local conditions, or any of the emergency plans or the exercise in May 1, 1981.
(Tr. 3631-32, 3636, 3644-45). Accordingly, there is no foundation at all for his purely speculative statements j regarding: when various categories of emergency would be declared; when notifications of offsite response organizations would occur; when public notification would take place; whether communications would be " jammed"; whether there would be traffic jams; whether there would be public panic; what if any personal injuries or health effects there would be; whether hospital and law enforcement parsonnel would abandon their posts; whether there would be a breakdown of law and. order and looting; whether appropriate texts for ,
- public advisories would be provided to the news media;
whether and when the National Guard would be activated, what i
training they would have received, and whether mutiny would occur; and what if any Presidential action might take place.
These statements should be stricken.
- 7. Dr. Kaku's lack of expertise in Accident Analysis Mindful of the Chairman's preference to hear evidence on the point (Tr. 3746) before ruling on qualifications, rather than rely on the institutional knowledge of the NRC as an I
expert body, we append Dr. Mochreiter's critique of Dr. Kaku's testimony which shows conclusively that Dr. Kaku should not l
l be permitted to give expert opinion evidence on the sequence of I
1 events leading to breach of containment or on the resulting releases.
Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, Dr. Kaku's amended prefiled testimony should be excluded or stricken.
Respectfully submitted, 7
4 Jos ph B. Knottsg Jr.
Co e for Applfcants Date: August 7, 1981 e
8
- , - - +,--- ,~-. , , - . - . , , - , - -r ,-,c.,e -
n-- -, ,-,s-,,,~,-v-- - - , . . , , - ,,,,,,,.n--- -
, - - - w- , , - . - - - - ,, , -a.- . < - . - - ,
, . 4 1
f 4
1 1
4 i
NOTE:
i l
Please note that this facsimile copy will be replaced with a signed original when received; " clean copies" thereof i
F will be distributed to the service 1.st.
1 t
,I j
a I
4 4
i i
l
' - , - - , , - - . , . n --- --, ..e,.....-,,,,,nn_, ,,nn...,,,-n,-n..,. ann,.,,n--,.-,--.e. . . . . . . . ,- - - . - . . . - . , - - - - - -