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 ProceedingsML18079B087 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Monticello, Salem ![Xcel Energy icon.png](/w/images/6/6c/Xcel_Energy_icon.png) |
---|
Issue date: |
08/01/1979 |
---|
From: |
Onsdorff K NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
---|
To: |
|
---|
Shared Package |
---|
ML18079B086 |
List: |
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7910110184 |
Download: ML18079B087 (13) |
|
|
---|
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 ML20216C1841998-03-0202 March 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed GL Addressing Issue of Yr 2000 Readiness as Published in FR,980129,volume 63,number 19,pp 4498 Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment.Nsp Suggests That Draft Ltr Not Be Issued ML20199C2721997-10-27027 October 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Proposed Amends to NRC Requirements for Emergency Preparedness & Security 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 ML20138K1511997-05-0606 May 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20117E4051996-08-0909 August 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Rule ML20086T3861995-07-20020 July 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC GL on Testing of safety- Related Logic Circuits ML20085E5261995-06-0606 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control 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 ML20134K4511995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re Plant.Pp 1-93 ML20134K4791995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re V Polizzi.Pp 1-115 ML20134K4971995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re L Reiter.Pp 1-64 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 ML20077M6181994-12-30030 December 1994 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Low Power Operations for Np Reactors.Util Believes That Pr Will Have Higher Impact than Described in Regulatory Analysis,As Pr Will Extend Refueling Outages at All Plants 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 ML20045G0941993-04-21021 April 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 100 Re Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation for Earthquakes.Nothing Exists Between Monitor Recording Time & CAV Methodology 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 ML20101F6861992-06-0909 June 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR19 & 20 to Extend Implementation Date of Revised 10CFR20 ML20090J9581992-03-12012 March 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR51 Re Environ Review of Applications to Renew Operating Licenses for Nuclear Plants. Licensee Endorses NUMARC Comments 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 ML20246D8811989-06-30030 June 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components 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 ML20235T7391989-02-23023 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants 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 ML20195H4211988-11-18018 November 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing ML20205Q1501988-10-28028 October 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal. Safety Sys Functional Insps & Configuration Mgt Programs Support Renewal Basis as Opposed to Relicensing Process 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 ML20247N7531988-07-28028 July 1988 Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-53 Requesting NRC Action to Review Undue Risk Posed by BWR Thermal Hydraulic Instability.Nrr Should Issue Order Requiring All GE BWRs to Be Placed in Cold Shutdown for Stated Reasons 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 ML20210B8061987-05-0101 May 1987 Order.* NRC 861020 Order Directing Licensee to Show Cause Why OL Should Not Be Modified to Prohibit Use of Radios,Tapes,Television Sets or Other Audible Entertainment Devices Recinded & Proceeding Dismissed.Served on 870501 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 ML20211D0291987-02-13013 February 1987 Order.* Staff Directed to File W/Commission & Serve on Petitioners & Licensees Detailed Explanation of Health & Safety Basis for 861020 Order Re Use of Audio Equipment in Control Rooms by 870306.Carr Views Encl.Served on 870217 ML20214C4131986-11-12012 November 1986 Affidavit of DE Gilberts Re Enforcement Action 86-164 & NRC 861022 Order to Show Cause Concerning Use of Radios in Control Rooms ML20215J1421986-10-20020 October 1986 Order to Show Cause Why Radios or Other Electrical/ Electronic Equipment Used to Provide Background Music in Control Rooms Should Not Be Removed (Ref IE Info Notice 85-053 & Circular 81-02) 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 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 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 ML18082A5281980-05-13013 May 1980 Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 800328-29 Evidentiary Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML18079A9711979-09-20020 September 1979 Applicant Comments on Request of Intervenors Coleman for Issuance of Order to Show Cause for Stay 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1984-01-25
[Table view] |
Text
MOTION Pursuant to 10 CFR §2.730, Intervenors, Coleman> hereby move for an Order reopening consideration of their Contentions Numbers Two and Sue for the limited purpose of including in the instant recor~ the NRC inspection report dated April 10, 1979, pertaining to the partially un-satisfactory results of venting of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station spent fuel pool racks, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
In support of the within motion, Intervenors shall rely upon the attached brief, exhibit and testimony of the parties hereto at the hearing held on May 3, 1979.
/ ' /' _..-
- -//*'*'.*_-~._,I.* -.* *,,//
. - - . ---- >],. -.}1_);_1."f-: _,-:--. ,,.:,_**~>'
.~- ,_/
KEITif A. ONSDORFF ~ .__
ASSISTANT DEPITTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE 79J01 l O I &'4
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ~mION Considerable time and attention in these proceedings has been devoted to the high density spent fuel pool racks recently installed at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station, owned and operated by the Northern States Power Company in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Due to the nl.IlTierous similarities between the new racks at ~1onticello and those proposed for use at Salem, the experiences at this Northern States' plant are understandably deemed pertinent to what can be reasonably anticipated at this Public Service plant, if reracked. Tr.544-1 to 547-9 to 16. Of particular importance is the continued serviceability of vented cells for storage of fuel since the sole reason for installation of new racks is to increase the pool's storage capacity. Any substant~al loss in cell availability will likewise substantially undermine the justification for this license amendment.
It therefore becomes highly relevant to obtain the fullest record possib]_e on this issue which is crucial to the very efficacy of applicant f s proposal. This is especially so in light of the apparently incorrect assertion by Exxon's nuclear expert, Mr. Eckhart, that the Monticello cells were used to store spent fuel after venting. Tr. 708-20 to 21. The document which Intervenors are submitting herewith indicates that the Nuclear Regulatory Corrunission has recently inspected this Northern State's plant and detennined that several vented cells did not successfully accept a test gauge for installa-tion of fuel assemblies. This loss of serviceability of vented cells may not in and of itself present a safety concern, if the cells are eliminated from use. It does, however, present one more unknown factor undercutting the confidence with which it can be concluded that reracking Salem One's spent fuel pool is the most prudent course of action to extend this facility's life span until away from reactor storage becomes available in the mid 1980's.
CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that Exhibit A, attached hereto, should be admitted as direct evidence on behalf of Colemans.' Contentions Two and Six.
Respectfully submitted,
/: .'
~ *~ , ;
. i , ., - ,
,~ - ~ . / .*.*.;:./_-*.,*- ... :-j - ......
- *-
- :. .*
KEITII A. ONSDORFF ASSIST.Ai\'T DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DATED: August 1, 1979 l
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Ill 799 ROOSEVELT A04D CLE"' ELLY"' ILL'"'0'5 60137 A?R 1 0 197~
Docket No. 50-263 Northern States Power Company ATT~: Hr. Leo ~achter
\'ice President Power Procuction anc System Operation 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, ~ 55401
- entle::-:en:
!his refers to the inspection conducted b: ~essrs. !. L. P.ar?ster.
J. E. ~e~:"ling anc G. C. ~righc of this office on ~arch 19-:3, l~;;,
of acci~i:ies at ~=~:icello ~uclear Generati~g Pla~t aut~~r~ze~ ~?
XRC Operat~ng license ~o. D?R-22 an~ co the discussio~ c! c~r !i~~i~~s
~ith ~r. Eliason an2 ethers o! your sca!f at the conclus~o~ =! =~~
inspectio:'l.
The enclosed copy of our inspectio~ re?~rt ide~tifies areas exa~ined during the inspectio'-. ~ithin these areas, the inspe**ion ~onsisted of a selective exa~:nation of proce=~re~
anc r:;rese:"ltative records, observations, an~ intervie~s ~it~
person:iel.
No ite~s of nonco~pl:ance ~ith ~RC require~ants ~er~ icE~tifie~
during the course of this inspe~tio~.
In accordance *1,<fth Section 2. 790 of the ?-~RC's "Rt.:les o:
Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulatio~s. a copy of tt~~ letter a~d the enclosed inspection report ~il~
be placec i~ the SRC's Public Docu~ent Roo:, except as follc~s.
If this report *contains inf on::ation that you or yot:r contractcrs belie*. :~ to be proprietary, you must ap?lY in 'rritin£ to this office, ~ithin twenty days of your receipt of this letter, tc withhold such information from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons fo:
which the information is considered pro?rietary, and shoulc be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
EXHIBIT A
Northern States Power APR l O 1979 Company We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, R. F. Heish=lan, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspectio7 Repcrc No~ 50-263/79-02 cc 'lde:i.cl:
Mr. L. R. Eliason, Plant Managt?r Jo~~ ~. Ferna~. Ph.D.
~uc lear Engineer, ?-~?CA Cer.-:ral Files Re?rocuction rnit ~RC 20:
PD?:
Local. PJF..
NSlC
!IC Anthony Reisman. Esq.,
Attorney
- u. s. NUCLEAR REGU1".~.TORY CO~r1ISsrm; OFFICE O? H:SPECTION A..\"D E~:O~C2-SN'f REGION III Report No. 50-263/79-02 Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall
- Minneapolis, HN 55401 Facility Name: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At: Monticello site, ~onticello, ~
Inspection Conducted: ~23, 1979
.1Cd Inspectors: T. L. Harp ter .
/ __ , / *. ~~-
<':::::; :P
".'~-~/,_.*...._.
A
"' t-~
t~* Men~*in_g
/!.!(; {_;/~ .* "
. j !
I
/* ,
/ -G. Wright *
-. ~1hiU
/////~ :.~:.,,.~-... ~ .. .l Approved By: . .R. F. ~\'arilick, c:;:\;hie*f r+*Rea~tor Projects Section 2 z -j )
Inspection Summarv Inspection on March 19-23, 1979 (Reoort No. 50-263/79-02)
Areas Insoected: Routine, unan~ounced inspection of design changes and modifications; design change and ~edification progra~; reviev of plant operations; cleanliness; followup on license 2..!nendment conditions; and followup of Bulletins, Circulars and LER's. this inspection involved approxbately 85 inspector ::12.nhours on site by three NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations ~ere identified in any of the areas inspected.
- 1. Personnel Contacted
- L. Eliason, Plant Xanager M. Clarity, Plant Superintendent, Engineering and Radiation Protection
- W. Anderson,*Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance D. Anthony, Superintendent, Operations Engineering
- W. Shamla, Superintendent, Technical Engineering R. Fey, Superintendent, Radiation Protection R. Scheinost, Senior Quality Engineer E.. Earney, Training Supervisor D. Nevinski, Senior Nuclear Engineer A. Myrabo, Assistant Nuclear Engineer L. Nolan, Chemical Engineer
- 0. Iverson, Associate Production Engineer R. Goranson, Assitant Production Engineer G. Smith, Assistant Production Engineer S. Shurts, Engineer P. Tobin, Engineer S. Hammer, Engineer T. Overlid, Engineer D. Pedersen, Engineer R. Nelson, Quality Engineer, Corpo~ate
- Denotes those attending the exit inte~vie~.
- 2. Inoffice Review of Licensee Event Renorts The inspector conducted a review within the regional office of
~elected licensee event reports to ascertain ~hether additional reactive inspection effort or other response was warranted; Yhether corrective action discussed in the event reports ap?eared appropriate; and whether reporting require:n.ents ~ere sat~sfied.
The following events are considered closed as a result of the review:
M-R0-78-18 M-R0-78-27 H-R0-78-21 M-R0-78-28 M-R0-78-22 M-R0-79-01
- No items of noncompliance or deviations ~ere identified.
- 3. Onsite Licens~e Event "Fr;"'..Jc-*'~~-.'.:'.l The inspector con::1'..:c ted ~ f c:. ~-:J-.;:_:'.) :".:1s~,2c ti.on of selected events to ascertain ~~ether ch2 ~-~c~~s~e's revlew, corrective action and reports of the ider:i.:*~:L~ci e~1e:*:t.s ::.:id e..ssoci.ated conditions are adequate and in conf ::.:-::1a.nce ;.;ith re.gulato-ry requirements, technical specifications, a~d.licensee procedures and controls.
The following events are considered closed as a result of this inspection:
M-R0-78-15 M-R0-78-23 M-R0-78-26 M-R0-78-19 H-RO- 7 8-* 2 4 M-R0-78-29 M-R0-78-20 M-R0-78-25 M-R0-78-30 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 4. IE Bulletin Folloi..-uo The inspector verified that 'for the follo\.ling IE Bulletins>>
the bulletins and responses were reviewed by appropriate onsite management representatives; info~tion discussed in tl:ie replies
~as accurate; any corrective actions taken were effected as described in the replies; and the replies were prompt and within
~he time periods requested.
The following Bulletins are considered closed as a result of this inspectioq:
IEB 78-09 IEB 78-14 No items of *:.ioncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 5. IE Circular Follow-UP The inspector verified that the following IE Circulars -were re-:
ceived by licensee management; a review for applicability was performed; and for circulars applicable to the facility, action taken or planned is appropriate.
The following Circular is considered closed as a result of this inspection:
IEC 78-16
-Nq items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3 -
- 6. De~iEn Changes and ~odif ications Program Tne inspector reviewed the licensee)s design change and modi-fication progra~ to ascertain whether the progr~~ is in con-.
f ornance with regulatory requirements> con::iitment:s in the application and industry guides or standards.
As part of this review, the.i"nspector reviewed the following_
procedures:
l ACD 3.3 (Rev. 3, 10/12/~7) 3 AWI 5.3.4 (Rev. 2, 11/6/78)
Design Change Control Ne'i.* Drawings 3 ACD 4.1 (Rev. 5, 12/8/78) 3 AWI 5.3.6 (Rev. 1> 11/6/78)
Design Change Control Drawing Deletions 3 ACD 4.2 (Rev 3, 11/4/77) 4 ACD 3.11 (Rev. 4, 8/12/78)
Design Change Installation Procedure Procedure Review and Approval 3 ACD 4.3 (Rev. 3, 11/4/77) 4 :\CD 3.10 (Rev. 2, 3/ 8/77)
Design Change Preoperational/ Document Control Operational Testing 3 ACD 5.3 (Rev. 4, 11/6/78) 4 ACD 4.8 (Rev~ 5, 3/18/77)
Drawing Control Bypass Control I
3 AWI 4.1.1 (Rev. 1, '3/25/75) Document Control Procedure IX-I Safety Evaluations (Rev. 0, 12/30/77)
Plant Controlled ~r2~ing :iles 3 AWI 5.3.4 (Rev. 3, 11/6/78) Docuoent Co~trol Procedure I-3 Drawing Revisions (Rev. l 11/10/76) Blank Fonr.s and Procedures Prir.ting, Distribution and Control No items of noncompliance or deviations ~e~e identified.
- 7. Design, Design Changes, and Mod~ficatfons The inspector reviewed the documentation for selected design changes to ascertain ~hether the changes were nade in accordance ~ith the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59.
The inspector initially reviewed the licensee's annu~l report of changes, tests, and e~1leriments which were carried out pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 in 1978. The following three activities '..'ere then selected for detailed review:.
a.
ATWS Hodif ica tion. Design Change r:o. 77Z024.
- b. Core Spray Isolation Valve Bypass Switch. Design Change No. 78 H075.
- c. Increase Allowable Number of Reactor Vessel Startup/Shutdown Cycles to 208. Safety Review Item No. 181.
In conducting the design change reviews, the inspector noted that design change pack.ages for the following four cocpleted activities were not closed out and available in the plant files:
- a. Load Mitigating Spargers. Design Change No. 78 M012.
- b. Shorten Torus Vent Header Downcomers. Design Cha~ge No.
78 M014.
- c. Installation of Torus Vent Header Deflector. Design Change No. 78 HOlS.
- d. Main Steam Line Manifold. Design Change No. 78Z028.
Investigation revealed that these design changes were under the cognizance of the licensee's Plant Engineering and Construction Department and that related installation ~ork ~as perforned during the most recent refueling outage. Failure to have these four desig~
packages closed out at the ti~e of this inspection appeared to be in violation of the licensee's procedure 3 ACD 4.1 (Rev. 5, 12/8/78)~
Design Change Control, ~hich requires that design changes be closed out three months after installation. This inconsistency ~as sub-sequently discussed with the Plant Superintendent Engineering and Radiation Protection "Who related. that a significant back log of open design change packages existed. Since the revision to 3 ACD 41. which established the three-nonth close out requirement was fairly recent (12/78), the inspector did not consider the failure to have these four design packages closed out to be an item of noncompliance. However, the inspector did encourage the licensee representative to institute the controls necessary to ensure the tir;iely close out of design change packages. !"he ins?eC-tors 's concerns in this area were reiterated during the e.xit interview.
No items of noncompliance or deviations ~ere identified.
- 8. License Amend'l!lents Nos. 34, 35 and 36 The inspector revie~ed the implerzientatio~ of license a!:lendm~nts 34, 35 and 36 to verify compliance with coi:!Illitments oade therein.
Amendment 34; High Densitv Fuel Storage System (HD?SS)
The inspector reviewed procurement documents, receiving ins?ection reports, install~tion procedures, special test procedure an~ modi-fication procedure for the four High Densitv Fuel Storage Rac~s no..., installed to verify compliance with cotmr.i tments made: in thE-license amendment.
The revie.,.. of the procurement documents v.erified that; B?pro?ria re-product quality certification documents froc the designer/vendor were available; analysis of the boral sheets used in the fue:l racks were available; and that certificates of compliance fro~
tqe assembler were available.
Receiving inpsection reports .including; inspection for clea:-..liness, dimensional checks and confirmation of poison plate instal!atio~ :~
neutron source/detection were revie.,..ed for coc?leteness a~~
conformity with conm:itments.
The follo~ing procedures were reviewed for each of the fo~~
modules installed.
- a. HDFSS ?-!odule Inspectio;. a:ic Preparatio~ Procec:.:-:-e
- b. HDFSS Boral Test Equipment Setup Proce:ure
- c. HDFSS Module Boral verif icaticn Proce~ure
- d. HDFSS Drilling and Re-sizing Procedu~e
- e. HDFSS Module Installation Procedure
- f. Hn::ss Xodule Re-installation Procedure
- g. HDFSS Module Lnloading Procedure
!: ..... **- :c -- ...... -
Dimensional checks, ;.;ith a 5.960" go/no-g~ gauge, afte:- ir:::L::
installation revealed that 11 of the 676 fuel stora~e loca:io~s would not accept the gauge and that t~~ of th~ 11 locatic~s vo~:=
not accept a dum;":"\' fuel ele!!lent.
After re=io\*al of the modules, drilling of 3/lf." holes i:1. t:.e t:::=
adjacent corners of each boral tube, re-sizing of eac~ tube ~y vacuum and mechanical means, and re-installatio~ of the roo=~les into the fuel pool, six of the original 11 tube locario~s ~~~:c still not accept the 5. 690 gauge hoveve:r, all locatior!s ~::- . . .:
accepted the dut:r.\' fuel element.
The licensee instituted a special test prograc to test each bora:
tube, in each module, after 60 days and again after 90 days prior to storing fuel in the modules. The results of the 60 dav tes:
- 6 .;.
\. . ' .
revealed that ~evyn of the original 11 locations would not acce?t the go/no-go gauge and the results of the 90 dav test reveale:
that eigh_t:._of _;__h~ orig}na~_~_ocatio~~ould not accep~_!-.c go/no-go gauge. ln all cases the dumr.iy fuel element could h(-
inserted with no proble~.
The license is presently storing fuel in both boral tubes a~:
~~j a_c~~_a_c-e_s ~-E~-:=_t}ie _e~~~..£~ i ~n~~f ;he_ ~_i_gh_t __ ~-?-~_a ~js>Io.?__j._~ e"-
t if i ed during the 90 daY test. These eight locations ha\'e, c-~~-:
Red'_'_flagged-~~dt~:i.~~-~s-ee stated they would not be use~
unless absolutely necessary.
At the time of the inspection the test specimens, both stainless steel boral and boral alone configurations, had not been installe:::!.
The material certifications had just been received and pla~s tc install the specimens are in progress.
In addition the inspector reviewed the Safety Evaluatio~ Re?~:-:
pertainin£ to the Hig~ Density Fuel Storage Syste=.
~o ice:s of noncocpliance er deviations ~ere ide~:ifie~:
- 9. Revie~ of Plant Opera:ic~s The inspector concu:::tec a re\'ie._- of pla::t ope:-atio:ls tc as:::e:-:a:-.
.,..hether facility operatio~ \.:as i:-: cor:!orr.:ance \.-i ti": te:::!1.ni::a.! s?e:::i-fiactions, resulatcry req~~-e~e~:s, ad=inistrative procedures, C:"
ocher co~~itments.
The inspector revie~e~ selectec O?e:-a:ing records for the peri~~
January 1 - March 21, 1979. These included: Control ~00= 0?erac~rs Daily Logs, ~~ift Su?erviscrs Dai!y Lo£, Ju~?er a~c Bypass Leg, Nigh: Order Book, Hold anc Secure Care Log.
The inspector conducted a tour cf the control roo~ anc other a~:::es sible plant areas to observe ins:rurnentation; raciatio~. !ire pre-vention, and equip~ent tagging controls; and status of seleccec plant syste~s and equi?~ent. In addition, housekeeping ~as observed on t...,..o separate tours throug:-: the reactor builci:-:~ a~::
found to be completely acce?ta~le at this tiQe.
No items of nonco~pliance or deviations Yere ide~tifiec.
- 10. Exit Intervie . . .
At the conclusion of the inspection on ~arch 23, 1979, the inspectors met with Station Management personnel (Denoted in Paragra?r. 1) and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
- i -
_J
UNITED STATES OF Af'lERICA NUCLEAR REGUIA10RY CCM1ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and licensing Board .
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC DCXl<ET NO. 50-272
& GAS CO.
(Salem Generating Station Unit ifal)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenors ' Colernans , Motions to :.
Reopen Contentions 'l\vo, Six and Thirteen in the above captioned matter have been served upon the,.parties hereto by deposit in the United States mail at the post office in Trenton, N. J., with proper postage thereon, this 2nd day of .August, 1979.
I , *1;.f /7('/j
/ . e. * . l (/ ~-L--£)c>tjz KEITH A. ONSOORFF ASSISTANT DEPUTI PUBUC