Similar Documents at Salem |
---|
Category:Legal-Correspondence
MONTHYEARML0931001372009-11-0505 November 2009 E-mail from Ray P. Kuyler, Counsel for PSEG Nuclear in Response to Petitioner'S Request for Extension of Time to File a Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene ML0931001452009-11-0404 November 2009 Letter from Alex Polonsky, Counsel for PSEG Nuclear in Response to Nov. 2, 2009 Request for Extension of Time to File by Delaware Riverkeeper and the New Jersey Environmental Federation ML0931001552009-11-0404 November 2009 2009/11/04- Notice of Appearances of Vincent C. Zabielski, Kathryn M. Sutton, Alex S. Polonsky, and Raphael P. Kuyler, Counsel for PSEG Nuclear in the Salem 1 and 2 License Renewal Proceeding ML0931001532009-11-0404 November 2009 2009/11/04- Notice of Appearances by Vincent C. Zabielski, Kathryn M. Sutton, Alex S. Polonsky, and Raphael P. Kuyler, Morgan, Counsel for PSEG Nuclear in the Hope Creek License Renewal Proceeding ML0931001522009-11-0404 November 2009 2009/11/04- Letter from Alex Polonsky, Counsel for PSEG Nuclear Petitioner'S Request for Extension of Time to File a Request for a Hearing in the Hope Creek License Renewal Proceeding ML0931006172009-11-0202 November 2009 2009/11/02- Letter to Chairman Jaczko from Jane Nogaki, Nj Environmental Federation Requesting a 60 Day Extension to File a Hearing Request in the Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2 License Renewal Proceedings ML0931006042009-11-0202 November 2009 2009/11/02 - Email from Fred Stein, Maya K. Van Rossum, Delaware Riverkeeper Requesting a 60 Day Extension to File a Request for Hearing in the Hope Creek and the Salem 1 and 2 License Renewal Proceeding ML0309700872003-03-25025 March 2003 Rothschild Inc.'S Cover Sheet Application for Allowance and Payment of Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period February 1, 2003 - February 28, 2003 ML0234003322002-12-0606 December 2002 Memorandum from Emile L. Julian to Recipients of Letter Dated 12/04/02 from Annette L. Vietti-Cook to Norm Cohen Regarding DD-02-03 ML19029A8491981-02-17017 February 1981 02/17/1981 Certificate of Service on Copies of Licensee'S Response to Briefs in Support of Exceptions of Lower Alloways Creek Township and Mr. and Mrs. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr ML19029A8531980-11-30030 November 1980 11/30/1980 Legal Correspondence Intervenors' Exception to Initial Decision of October 27, 1980 ML19029A8851980-05-13013 May 1980 Certificate of Service of Copies of Licensee'S Request for Extension of Time & Response to NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time & Licensee'S Proposed Transcript Corrections for the Evidentiary Hearings of 3/28-29/1980. ML19029A8861980-05-0202 May 1980 05/02/1980 Legal Correspondence Delaware'S Corrections of Transcript ML19029A8781980-04-10010 April 1980 04/10/1980 Legal Correspondence Licensee'S Response to Licensing Board Question 5 on 'Gross Loss of Water' from the Salem Spent Fuel Pool ML19029A8811980-04-0909 April 1980 04/09/1980 Legal Correspondence Submittal of Technical Report of Dr. Richard E. Webb in Response to ASLB Order of February 22, 1980 ML19029A8791980-04-0909 April 1980 04/09/1980 Legal Correspondence Written Testimony and Qualifications of Dr. David B. Fankhauser, in Response to ASLB Order of February 22, 1980 ML19029A8821980-04-0707 April 1980 04/07/1980 Legal Correspondence Intervenors' Inability to Prepare Written Testimony in Requisite Time to Most Recent Question Posed by Board ML19029A7781979-12-13013 December 1979 Informing Licensee'S Installation Procedure for Increased Capacity Spent Fuel Racks Has Been Submitted ML19029A7651979-08-31031 August 1979 Certify Copies of Licensee'S Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Coleman'S Contention No. 13 & Licensee'S Response to Motion to Re-open Coleman'S Contention 2 & 6 for Receipt of Newly Discovered Evidence. ML19029A7641979-08-31031 August 1979 Licensee'S Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Colemans' Contention No. Thirteen ML19029A7551979-08-22022 August 1979 Unit #1 - Intervenors', Coleman, Response to Boards Question Number Four: Was TMI a Class Nine Accident? ML19029A7601979-08-10010 August 1979 Applicant'S Request for an Extension of Time to Respond to Intervenors' Motion to Reopen Coleman'S Contentions Two & Six for Receipt of Newly Discovered Evidence & Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Coleman'S Contention No. 13. ML19029A8181979-06-26026 June 1979 06/26/1979 Licensee'S Answer to Motion by Intervensors, Coleman, to Compel Supplementation of Answers to Interrogatories by Licensee ML19029A8211979-06-25025 June 1979 Intervenor Township of Lower Alloways Creek Response to NRC Staff Objection to Board Question ML19029A8231979-06-18018 June 1979 Licensee'S Response to NRC Staff Objection to Board Question and Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Board Question Relating to Class 9 Accidents ML19029A8251979-06-14014 June 1979 Enclosed Brief on Behalf of Interveners in Opposition to Staff'S Objection to Board'S Consideration of Impacts of Class Nine Accident on Salem Spent Fuel Pool ML19029A8281979-06-12012 June 1979 06/12/1979 Legal Correspondence Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order Dated April 18, 1979 ML19029A8301979-06-11011 June 1979 06/11/1979 Legal Correspondence Intervenor Township of Lower Alloways Creek Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to NRC Staff Objection to Board Question ML19029A8541979-04-26026 April 1979 04/26/1979 Legal Correspondence Professional Qualifications of Warren S. Nechodom ML19029A8631979-04-25025 April 1979 04/25/1979 State of New Jersey'S Outline of Cross-Examination ML19029A8611979-04-25025 April 1979 04/25/1979 Licensee'S Outline of Cross-Examination ML19029A8601979-04-25025 April 1979 04/25/1979 Legal Correspondence Outline of Cross-Examination of Evidence Submitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ML19029A8581979-04-25025 April 1979 04/25/1979 Legal Correspondence Outline of Areas of Cross-Examination ML19029A8571979-04-25025 April 1979 04/25/1979 Intervenors' Response to ASLBP Order Dated April 18, 1979 ML19029A8561979-04-25025 April 1979 04/25/1979 Outline of Intervenors, Colemans, Cross-Examination; Contentions Two and Six ML19029A8641979-04-24024 April 1979 04/24/1979 Legal Correspondence Non-Proprietary Version of Exxon Nuclear Company'S Report on Fuel Storage Racks Corrosion Program ML19029A8671979-04-23023 April 1979 04/23/1979 Licensee'S Objections to Intervenors' Profferred Testimony ML19029A8731979-04-12012 April 1979 04/12/1979 Legal Correspondence Application for Stay by the Township of Lower Alloways Creek ML19029A8741979-04-11011 April 1979 04/11/1979 Legal Correspondence Intervenors Submit Their Proposed Direct Testimony to Be Elicited from Robert M. Crockett, Vice President for Fuel Supply, Public Service Electric and Gas Company ML19029A8771979-04-0707 April 1979 04/07/1979 Legal Correspondence Township of Lower Alloways Creek Objections to Prehearing Order and Requests for Revision of Order or Recertification ML19029A4421979-04-0202 April 1979 Letter Re Prehearing Conference to Fulfill the Requirements by the ASLBP for the Identification of Written Testimony and the Proposed Order or Proof ML19029A8471979-04-0202 April 1979 04/02/1979 Legal Correspondence Identification of Written Testimony to Be Filed ML19029A4541979-03-26026 March 1979 Interveners, Colemans' Memorandum in Opposition to the Licensee'S Motion for Summary Disposition, Interveners' Statement of Material Facts in Dispute Pertaining to Contention Two ML19029A4571979-03-20020 March 1979 Interested State of Delaware'S Answer to Licensee'S Motion for Summary Judgment ML19029A4591979-03-12012 March 1979 Intervenor Township of Lower Alloways Creek'S Answer to Motion for Summary Disposition ML19029A4601979-03-12012 March 1979 Request for Report & Correspondence for Constituent'S Inquiry ML19029A4641979-03-0707 March 1979 Intervenors, Colemans, Motion to Consolidate Prehearing Conference with Special Prehearing Conference for Purposes of Prehearing Order ML19029A4651979-03-0606 March 1979 Letter Re Resolution Which Was Approved & Adopted by Township Committee of Township of Pennsville ML19029A4691979-02-27027 February 1979 Public Service Electric & Gas Co. - Licensee'S Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Disposition ML19029A4731979-02-16016 February 1979 Resolution Opposing Storage of High Level Radioactive Wastes in Lower Alloways Creek Township 2009-11-05
[Table view] |
Text
.. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS ) Docket No. 50-272 COMPANY, et al. ) (Proposed Issuance of
) Amendment to Facility (Salem Nuclear Generating ) Operating License Station, Unit 1) . * ) No. DPR-70)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COLEMANS' CONTENTION NO. THIRTEEN On August 2, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Alfred c. Coleman, Jr.,
intervenors in the captioned proceeding, mov.ed to reopen consideration of their Contention 13 which had previously been dismissed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as a result of a.motion for summary disposition filed by the Licensee. In the instant motion, the Colemans attempted to tie a number of different and seemingly unconnected matters to this contention in an attempt to have these matters heard by the Licensing Board. As discussed below, the motion is without merit and should be denied.
Initially, the Intervenors have given no justification for filing their request for reconsideration at this late
__y stage. Contention 13 was dismissed four months ago. The
- __!! Order dated April 30, 19 79 at 12-19.
request for reconsideration of the dismissed contention is based upon the Intervenors legal viewpoint regarding the Commission's "as low as reasonably achievable" standard.
Their argument as to their legal position and the scope of their contention should have been articulated in response to the Licensee's summary disposition motion. This motion is clearly inexcusably late.
To briefly deal with the legal issue raised, it is clear that Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 specifically controls the releases of radioactive material from light water nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
Part 50, Appendix I. This Appendix, arrived at after an extensive rulemaking proceeding, is the Commission's ex-pression of numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions of operation to meet. the "as low as reasonably achievable" criterion. In fact, in Section I, thereof, the Commission states that "[d]esign objectives and limiting conditions of operation conforming to the guidelines of this Appendix shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with the "as low as is reasonably achievable" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.34a and 50.36a [footnote omitted]." It is clear that contention 13 relates entirely to an asserted increase in the public's exposure to radiation fr.om the increase in storage capacity* for spent nuclear fuel. Thus, the Board was entirely correct in dismissing Contention 13.
Now, seemingly for the first time and despite its clear language, the Coleman's seek to transform this contention into one which relates to consideration of alternatives and occupational exposure. These matters are clearly not within
_l_I the purview of Contention 13.
In the remainder of the brief, the Colemans argue in-consistently that PSE&G must "evaluate whether use of re-racked Unit Two exclusively maintains radiation exposures as 3/
low as is reasonably achievable,"- that* the procedure adopted by the Board to permit the Staff to supply infer-
__!/
mation requested by i t is some type of "ex parte" manner, and that the record should remain as is.
The Licensee submits that these arguments are prema-
-2/
ture~ The Licensee agrees, however, that the information
_l_/ The intervenors argue that the Licensees must, without reference to any other factors, select the alternative that produces the lowest occupational exposure. There is no basis for this shown under NEPA, the NRC's implementing rules and regulations or 10 C.F.R. §20.1 which defines the "as low as reasonably achievable" standard.
The first footnote of the Statement in Support of Motion on p. 5. It is paradoxical that intervenors would push to compare occupational doses associated with changing the racks in a contaminated environment with shipment of spent fuel to Salem Unit 2. But for these proceedings, the changeover to th.e new racks would have been* done in an uncontaminated state with no exposure involved.
__!/ Statement in Support of Motion at 6-7 *
.2./ We also would take exception to a nurnber*of characteriza-tions of the testimony of witnesses and statements of counsel made on the record of the proceedings by counsel for the Colemans. Several have been taken out of context or un-warranted infererices have been made. For example, the Colemans' counsel proclaims that*the Board "was in substan-tial agreement with the Colemans' interpretations of the licensee's obligation under 10 c.F.R. Appendix I and 10 C.F.R. 20.1."
- Sure*ly counsel must recognize that one cannot divine any position of the Board based upon questions asked during the course of a proceeding.
requested by the Board should be made part of the record of this proceeding. To facilitate this, the affidavit of Robert Douglas which presents information on which certain of the Staff's information is based is attached for incor-poration into the record. With this information, we believe that it is clear that transshipping to Unit 2 has substantially higher occupational doses associated with i t than does reracking at Unit 1. Since this information is being sub-mitted based upon a request by the Board, we submit that any additional examination be permitted only if a showing in writing is made that establishes a substantial challenge to the methodology and conclusions contained therein. We submit, in that these questions originated with the Board, the Board would be well within its discretion to* require such a showing.
As a final matter, the Colemans complain that they had insufficient time to explore the effect of capacity factor on fuel discharge. Initially, as far as the asserted effect of capacity factor on discharge, that could have and should have been explored first during the discovery phase of this proceeding and then during their turn for cross-examination of the witnesses addressing Lower Alloways Creek 6/
Township Contention l.~ The data which the Colemans seek to utilize (or information very similar to it) was available
_ii In fact, the relationship between capacity factor and the number of fuel elements discharged was explored on the record (Tr. 1110-1).
.JJ' well before the evidentiary hearing in this matter. No good cause has been shown to permit further examination. Counsel for the Colemans was given full opportunity to cross-examine regarding the data concerning the estimate of the number of fuel elements discharged. Licensee would again note that the Colemans have no contention in this area and even dis-missed Contention 13 bears absolutely no relationship to this data.
Conclusion For the above stated reasons, the Colemans' motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MOORE & CORBER Wetterhahn Counsel for the Licensee August 31, 1979