|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217L8481999-10-25025 October 1999 NRC Staff First Supplemental Response to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Staff Objects to Document Request as Being Overly Broad & Unduly Burdensome. with Certification of Svc ML20217H9661999-10-20020 October 1999 NRC Staff Second Supplemental Response to Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Listed Documents Requested to Be Produced.With Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20217E0881999-10-18018 October 1999 Order (Granting Discovery Extension Request).* Board of Commission of Orange County 991013 Motion for Extension of 991031 Discovery Deadline,Granted,In That Parties Shall Have Up to 991104.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991018 ML20217F7711999-10-17017 October 1999 Corrected Notice of Deposition of SE Turner.* Orange County Gives Notice That on 991104 Deposition Upon Oral Exam of Turner Will Be Deposed with Respect to Contention TC-2. Related Correspondence ML20217F7681999-10-17017 October 1999 Orange County Third Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Submits Third Set of Discovery Requests & Requests Order by Presiding Officer That Discovery Be Answered within 14 Days. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D6181999-10-14014 October 1999 Request for Entry Upon Harris Site.* Staff Hereby Requests That Applicant,Cp&L Permit Entry Into Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant,For Viewing & Insp of Plant Spent Fuel Pool Bldg. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217E2611999-10-13013 October 1999 Orange County Second Suppl Response to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests & First Suppl Response to NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests.* Clarifies That G Thompson Sole Witness.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217E2581999-10-13013 October 1999 Orange County Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline.* Orange County Requests Extension of 991031 Deadline for Concluding Discovery Proceeding.Extension Needed to Permit Dispositions of Two CP&L Witnesses.With Certificate of Svc ML20217E1461999-10-13013 October 1999 Request for Entry Upon Harris Site.* Entry Requested for Purpose of Inspecting SFP Bldg & Associated Piping.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D5561999-10-13013 October 1999 Applicant Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Board of Commissioners of Orange County.* Applicant Requests Answers to Listed Interrogatories & Requests for Admission. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D5761999-10-13013 October 1999 Applicant Third Supplement Response to Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* Provides Addl Responses to General Interrogatory 3.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D6201999-10-12012 October 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Staff Will Respond to Applicant Specific Requests within 30 Days of Receipt of Applicant Requests.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D5661999-10-12012 October 1999 NRC Staff First Supplemental Response to Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Supplements Response by Naming C Gratton as Person Likely to Provide Affidavit.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212M0271999-10-0707 October 1999 Notice (Opportunity to Make Oral or Written Limited Appearance Statements).* Board Will Entertain Oral Limited Appearance Statements Re CP&L 981223 Amend Request. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 991007 ML20212L1441999-10-0505 October 1999 NRC Staff Response to Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Staff Is Now Voluntarily Providing Responses to Orange County'S Request for Production of Documents.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212J0801999-09-29029 September 1999 Orange County Second Set of Document Requests to NRC Staff.* Submits Second Set of Document Requests to NRC Pursuant to 10CFR2.744 & Board Memorandum & Order,Dtd 990729.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212G0001999-09-24024 September 1999 Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Requests Access to Documents Given to Board of Commissioners by Staff Pursuant to 990920 Discovery Request. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212G0081999-09-24024 September 1999 Applicant First Suppl Response to Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* Suppl Provides Addl Responses to General Interrogatories 2 & 3. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212D7151999-09-20020 September 1999 Applicant Response to General Interrogatories & General Document Requests in NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests.* CP&L Filing Responses Per Staff Request within 14 Days....With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212D8521999-09-20020 September 1999 Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff Including Request for Order Directing NRC Staff to Answer Certain Discovery Requests.* with Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20212C1231999-09-17017 September 1999 Orange County Responses to Applicant First Set of Document Production Request.* Orange County Has No Documents Responsive to Request.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211N7481999-09-10010 September 1999 NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Applicant Cp&L.* Staff Requests Applicant Produce All Documents Requested by & Provided to Bcoc. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211N5021999-09-0808 September 1999 Orange County Objections & Responses to NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests.* County Objects to Questions to Extent That Staff Seek Discovery Beyond Scope of County Two Contentions.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211M4201999-09-0707 September 1999 Applicant Response to Specific Document Requests in Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211M5001999-09-0303 September 1999 Orange County Supplemental Response to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.* with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211H4931999-08-30030 August 1999 Orange County Objections to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests & Response to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.* Objects to First Set of Discovery Requests.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211B7951999-08-23023 August 1999 NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Board of Commissioners of Orange County (Bcoc).* Staff Requests That Bcoc Produce All Documents Requested by Applicant. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211B8361999-08-23023 August 1999 Applicant Response to General Interrogatories & General Document Requests in Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* with Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20210T3531999-08-16016 August 1999 Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Board of Commissioners of Orange County (Bcoc).* CP&L Requests That Bcoc Answer Listed General Interrogatories by 990830. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210L9571999-08-0606 August 1999 Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Applicant.* Interrogatories & Document Production Requests Cover All Info in Possession,Custody & Control of Cp&L.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20216E2041999-07-29029 July 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Request to Invoke 10CFR Part 2, Subpart K Procedures & Establishing Schedule).* Board Grants Carolina Power & Light Co 990721 Request to Proceed Under Subpart K.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990730 ML20210B2271999-07-21021 July 1999 Applicant Request for Oral Argument to Invoke Subpart K Hybrid Hearing Procedures & Proposed Schedule.* Applicant Recommends Listed Schedule for Discovery & Subsequent Oral Argument.With Certificate of Svc ML20209G7371999-07-16016 July 1999 Notice of Hearing (License Amend Application to Expand Sf Pool Capacity).* Provides Notice of Hearing in Response to Commissioners of Orange County Request for Hearing Re CP&L Amend Application.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990716 ML20209D1791999-07-12012 July 1999 Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Standing & Contentions).* Grants Petitioner 990212 Hearing Request Re Intervention Petition Challenging CP&L 981223 Request for Increase in Sf Storage Capacity.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990712 ML20212J5831999-07-0101 July 1999 Notice of Appearance.* Informs That SL Uttal Will Enter Appearance in Proceeding Re Carolina Power & Light Co.Also Encl,Notice of Withdrawal for ML Zobler,Dtd 990701. with Certificate of Svc ML20196A8751999-06-22022 June 1999 Order (Corrections to 990513 Prehearing Conference Transcript).* Proposed Corrections to Transcript of Board 990513 Initial Prehearing Conference Submitted by Petitioner & Application.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990622 ML20207D6991999-05-27027 May 1999 Orange County Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 990113 Prehearing Conference.* Orange County Submits Proposed Corrections to Transcript of Prehearing Conference of 990513.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D6651999-05-27027 May 1999 Applicant Proposed Corrections to Prehearing Conference Transcript.* ASLB Ordered That Any Participant Wishing to Propose Corrections to Transcript of 990513 Prehearing Conference Do So by 990527.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D6891999-05-27027 May 1999 Orange County Response to Applicant Proposed Rewording of Contention 3,regarding Quality Assurance.* County Intends to Renew Request for Admission of Aspect of Contention.With Certificate of Svc ML20206R8731999-05-20020 May 1999 Memorandum & Order (Transcript Corrections & Proposed Restatement of Contention 3).* Any Participant Wishing to Propose Corrections to Transcript of 990513,should Do So on or Before 990527.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990520 ML20206R2411999-05-13013 May 1999 Transcript of 990513 Prehearing Conference in Chapel Hill,Nc Re Carolina Power & Light Co.Pp 1-176.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20206H9331999-05-11011 May 1999 Notice (Changing Location & Starting Time for Initial Prehearing Conference).* New Location for Conference, Southern Human Resources Ctr,Main Meeting Room,Chapel Hill, Nc.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990511 ML20206G4051999-05-0505 May 1999 Applicant Answer to Petitioner Board of Commissioners of Orange County Contentions.* Requests That Technical Contentions in Section III & Environ Contentions in Section IV Not Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20206F9491999-05-0505 May 1999 NRC Staff Response to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* None of Petitioner Proposed Contentions Meet Commission Requirements for Admissible Contention.Petitioner 990212 Request Should Be Denied.With Certificate of Svc ML20206A0851999-04-22022 April 1999 Erratum to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Citation to Vermont Yankee LBP-87-17,should Be Amended to Read Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station).With Certificate of Svc ML20205Q8121999-04-21021 April 1999 Order (Granting Motion to Relocate Prehearing Conference).* Initial Prehearing Conference Will Be Held in District Court of Orange County Courtroom,Chapel Hill,Nc on 990513 as Requested.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990421 ML20196K8771999-04-0505 April 1999 Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Informs That Orange County Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation in Proceeding ML20196K8861999-04-0505 April 1999 Declaration of Gordon Thompson.* Informs of Participation in Preparation of Orange County Contentions Re Proposed License Amend ML20205E3101999-04-0101 April 1999 Memorandum & Order (Protective Order).* Grants 990326 Motion of Petitioner for Approval of Proposed Protective Order to Govern Use & Dissemination of Proprietary or Other Protected Matls.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990203 ML20196K9041999-03-31031 March 1999 Declaration of DA Lochbaum,Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists,Re Technical Issues & Safety Matters Involved in Harris Nuclear Plant License Amend for Sfs.* with Certificate of Svc 1999-09-08
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217D6181999-10-14014 October 1999 Request for Entry Upon Harris Site.* Staff Hereby Requests That Applicant,Cp&L Permit Entry Into Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant,For Viewing & Insp of Plant Spent Fuel Pool Bldg. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217E1461999-10-13013 October 1999 Request for Entry Upon Harris Site.* Entry Requested for Purpose of Inspecting SFP Bldg & Associated Piping.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217E2581999-10-13013 October 1999 Orange County Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline.* Orange County Requests Extension of 991031 Deadline for Concluding Discovery Proceeding.Extension Needed to Permit Dispositions of Two CP&L Witnesses.With Certificate of Svc ML20210B2271999-07-21021 July 1999 Applicant Request for Oral Argument to Invoke Subpart K Hybrid Hearing Procedures & Proposed Schedule.* Applicant Recommends Listed Schedule for Discovery & Subsequent Oral Argument.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D6651999-05-27027 May 1999 Applicant Proposed Corrections to Prehearing Conference Transcript.* ASLB Ordered That Any Participant Wishing to Propose Corrections to Transcript of 990513 Prehearing Conference Do So by 990527.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D6891999-05-27027 May 1999 Orange County Response to Applicant Proposed Rewording of Contention 3,regarding Quality Assurance.* County Intends to Renew Request for Admission of Aspect of Contention.With Certificate of Svc ML20205A9201999-03-26026 March 1999 Motion for Approval of Protective Order.* Orange County,With Support of CP&L & Nrc,Requests Board Approval of Encl Protective Order.With Certificate of Svc ML20204E5341999-03-17017 March 1999 Orange County Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Protective Order.* Licensing Board Granted Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Proposed Protective Order Until 990304.With Certificate of Svc ML20207L4041999-03-16016 March 1999 NRC Staff Answer to Orange County Motion to Relocate Prehearing Conference.* NRC Has No Objections to Relocating Prehearing Conference,Time or Place.With Certificate of Svc ML20204C9721999-03-15015 March 1999 Applicant Response to Bcoc Motion to Relocate Prehearing Conference.* Applicant Requests That Prehearing Conference Be Held in Hillsborough,Nc.Location Available to Hold Prehearing Conference on 990513.With Certificate of Svc ML20207K1391999-03-0909 March 1999 Orange County Motion to Relocate Prehearing Conference.* Requests Licensing Board Relocate Prehearing Conference Scheduled for 990511 to Site in Area of Shearon Harris Npp. with Certificate of Svc ML20127M4091992-10-0202 October 1992 CP&L Response to Appeal to NRC Commissioners of NRC Staff Denial of Nirs Petitions for Immediate Enforcement Action of 920721 & 0812.* Commission Should Affirm NRR Denial of Nirs Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20213A0091987-01-28028 January 1987 NRC Staff Response to Intervenor Application for Stay of ALAB-856.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris Lacks Standing to File Motion & 10CFR2.788 Criteria Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212R6431987-01-27027 January 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Motion for Extension Until 870128 to File Response to Intervenors Motion for Stay of ALAB-856.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212R6861987-01-27027 January 1987 Licensees Answer to Conservation Council of North Carolina/ Eddleman Motion for Stay.* Motion Should Be Summarily Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209A7191987-01-27027 January 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* One Day Extension of Time Until 870128 to File Response to Intervenors Motion for Stay of ALAB-856 Requested.Granted for ASLB on 870128.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20207N6051987-01-10010 January 1987 Conservation Council of North Carolina,Wells Eddleman,Pro Se & Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris Motion to Stay Effectiveness of Licensing of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20207M0191987-01-0808 January 1987 Motion to Continue Commission decision-making Re Licensing of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.* Requests NRC Refrain from Issuing Full Power OL Until Criteria Assuring Safe Operation Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214A5171986-11-17017 November 1986 Response Opposing State of Nc Atty General 861028 Motion Re Applicant Request for Exemption from Portion of 10CFR50, App E & Part IV.F.1.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197C8511986-11-0303 November 1986 Response to Atty General of State of Nc 861028 Motion to Dismiss,As Moot,Util 860304 Request for Exemption from 10CFR50,App E Requirement for Full Participation Exercise 1 Yr Prior to Full Power License.W/Certificate of Svc ML20215M2281986-10-28028 October 1986 Motion for Inquiry Into Feasibility of Applicant 860304 Request for Exemption from Requirement That full-scale Emergency Preparedness Exercise Be Conducted within 1 Yr Prior to Issuance of Ol.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215G7061986-10-17017 October 1986 Response Opposing W Eddleman & Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris 861006 Brief Requesting Hearing on Util Request for Exemption from Performing full-scale Emergency Exercise,Per Commission 860912 Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20215J6121986-10-17017 October 1986 W Eddlemen & Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris Petition,Per 10CFR2.206 to Revoke,Suspend or Modify Cp. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203N9191986-10-14014 October 1986 Response Opposing Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris/Eddleman 860731 Request for Hearing on Util Request for Exemption from Requirement to Conduct Full Participation Exercise.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210V1571986-10-0606 October 1986 Answer in Opposition to Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris,W Eddleman & Conservation Council of North Carolina 860915 Motion to Reopen Record.Related Info & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210S9871986-10-0606 October 1986 Brief Opposing Applicant 860304 & 0710 Requests for Exemption from 10CFR50,App E Requirement to Conduct Full Participation Exercise of Emergency Mgt Plan within 1 Yr Prior to Operation.W/Certification of Svc ML20214S0831986-09-25025 September 1986 Applicant Answer Opposing 860915 Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (Cash) Motion to Reopen Record.Motion Opposed Since Cash Not Party in OL Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214R0531986-09-24024 September 1986 Response Opposing Eddleman/Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris 860919 Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Commission 860912 Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214R3681986-09-23023 September 1986 Response Opposing Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris/Eddleman Request for 2-wk Extension to Respond to Commission 860912 Order Re Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App E.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214Q9531986-09-19019 September 1986 Requests Extension of Time Until 2 Wks from 860929 Deadline to Respond to 860912 Order Requiring Analysis of 10CFR50.12 Specific Exemptions ML20210D9001986-09-15015 September 1986 Motion to Reopen Record,Per 10CFR2.734,asserting That Commission Unable to Determine Reasonableness of Assurance That Plant Can Operate W/O Endangering Public Health & Safety.Certificate of Svc & Insp Rept 50-400/85-48 Encl ML20203M0021986-08-28028 August 1986 Response Opposing Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris/Eddleman 860731 Joint Petition for Hearing on Exemption Request Re Full Participation Emergency Preparedness Exercise.W/Certificate of Svc ML18004A4681986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris 860702 Show Cause Petition Re Emergency Planning Requirements,Filed Per 10CFR2.206.Petition Should Be Denied Due to Lack of Basis for Action.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205F3591986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris 860702 2.206 Petition to Show Cause Re Emergency Planning Requirements,P Miriello Allegations & Welding Insps.Show Cause Order Unwarranted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20205F4131986-08-14014 August 1986 Answer Opposing Intervenor 860730 Petition for Review of Aslab 860711 Memorandum & Order Denying Two Requests for Relief.Petition Lacks Important Procedural Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205F2251986-08-14014 August 1986 Answer Opposing Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris & W Eddleman 860730 Petition for Commission Review Per 10CFR2.786.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203K1511986-07-30030 July 1986 Petition for Commission Review of Aslab 860711 Memorandum & Order Denying Coalition for Alternative to Shearon Harris 860609 Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20212A6071986-07-25025 July 1986 Response to ASLAP 860708 Order Requiring Licensee to Update Re Emergency Plan.Chatham County Resolution Does Not Resolve Issues Re Adequacy of Plan.Resolution False. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207J8281986-07-24024 July 1986 Response Opposing W Eddleman 860403 Request for Hearing on Util Request for Exemption from Emergency Preparedness Exercise Requirement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211Q5221986-07-23023 July 1986 Answer Opposing Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris 860721 Motion for 10-day Extension to File Brief Supporting 860721 Notice of Appeal & Request for Review of Aslab 860711 Memorandum & Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20207E4231986-07-18018 July 1986 Response to Aslab 860708 Order to File Update to Re Chatham County,Nc Rescission of Prior Approval of Emergency Response Plan.Chatham County Endorsed Plan on 860707.W/Certificate of Svc ML20199L1671986-07-0808 July 1986 Suppl to 860624 Response to Conservation Council of North Carolina & Eddleman Request to Continue Stay Indefinitely.On 860707,Chatham County Adopted Resolution Which Endorses Emergency Plan.W/Certificate of Svc ML18019B0891986-07-0202 July 1986 Petition Requesting Institution of Proceedings Per 10CFR2.206,requiring Util to Respond to Show Cause Order Due to Failure to Meet Required Stds in Areas of Emergency Planning,Plant Safety,Security & Personnel Stress ML20206R8691986-06-30030 June 1986 Response Opposing Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (Cash) 860609 Petition for Leave to Intervene.Any Cash Participation Would Cause Delay in Proceedings.Petition Should Be Rejected as Untimely Filed ML20206P6641986-06-25025 June 1986 Response to Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris & W Eddleman 860428 Motion for Stay of Immediate Effectiveness of Final ASLB Decision.Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206J3641986-06-24024 June 1986 Response Opposing Conservation Council of North Carolina & W Eddleman 860609 Motion to Stay All Power Operations Per ASLB 860428 Final Decision.Motion Fails to Show Single Significant Safety Issue.W/Certificate of Svc ML20206J2051986-06-24024 June 1986 Response to Intervenors Conservative Council of North Carolina & W Eddleman Request to Continue Stay Indefinitely. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20211D8641986-06-0909 June 1986 Requests to Continue Temporary Automatic Stay of ASLB Authorization of Full Power Operations Indefinitely.Low Power Operations Should Be Stayed Until NRC Completes Immediate Effectiveness Review & Encl Comments Resolved ML20199E4441986-06-0909 June 1986 Request to Indefinitely Continue Temporary Automatic Stay as to ASLB Authorization of Full Power Operations Until Commission Resolves Issue Raised in Encl Comments on Immediate Effectiveness Review ML20205T4001986-06-0909 June 1986 Appeal from Final Licensing Board Decision to Grant Ol.Board Erred in Determining That Widespread Drug Abuse Had No Effect on Const,In Accepting Applicant Nighttime Alert & Notification Plans & in Rendering Final Decision 1999-07-21
[Table view] |
Text
~
.: . .q
- i '
- ~
,F >S;ptemb::r 1, l1983 y.
1 UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
- ,i
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICkNSING BOARD In the Matter of- ): *
'n- .
).
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPAlW )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket Nos..50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ). 50-401 OL
)
--(Shearon Harris Nuclear-Power )
1 ' Plant, Units 1 and'2) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENOR WELLS EDDLEMAN'S CONTENTION 80 (ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL)
Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal' Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic i
Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 4 .BO.
For.the reasons set forth herein, Applicants respectfully
- submit-that there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Contention 80, and that Applicants are entitled to a deai-sion in their favor on, Contention 80 as a matter of law.
This motion'is supported by:
- 1. " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard On Eddleman Contention 80";
- 2. " Applicants' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motions For Summary Disposition On Intervenor 6309070195 830901 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PM
d Eddleman's Contentions 64(b),'75, 80 and 83/84," all filed simultaneously herewith, as well.as the pleadings and other papers; filed by.the parties.in this proceeding; 3.- " Affidavit of Brian-D. McFeaters" and' l Exhibits A-and B attached:thereto'; and-4
- 4. - " Affidavit of Wayne' Lei"-and Exhibit A atta-
. ched thereto.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I.
- Eddleman Contention 80 alleges that the mixing and disper-
- f. sion'models for radiological releases from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ("SHNPP") assume more complete dispersion than actually takes place because_they do not-take into account various meteorological: conditions that could affect such dis-
, persion. The wording of Eddleman Contention 80 accepted by the Board is stated as follows:
! Eddleman Contention 80 t
Tne mixing models and dispersion models for
- radioactive gas, liquid and other radiological releases from SHNPP under 10 C.F.R. part 20 are deficient in that they assume more complete mixing and dispersion of such radionuclides released than will actually take place, take in-sufficient account of rainout of such a release i plume in a small area (rain precipitating the radionuclides in the plume) and thus do not as-sure that releases comply with 10 C.F.R. 20.106 and the protection of the public health and safety, including holding individual doses below
~
24 rem whole body and thyroid doses below 300 rem in an accident, and below 10-3 of these values in normal operation.
i i
I j - ~%
1 ywg- ww= p- -
On' January -31,. - 1983, - Applicants served. interrogatories on
.Mr. Eddleman to discover what aspects of the models ware 1 alleged to 'be inadequate and the basis for this allegation.
" Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production.of Documents to Intervenor Wells Eddleman (First Set)," dated January 31,~1983, at 37 - 39. The NRC staff also addressed interrogatories to Mr. Eddleman. "NRC Staff Interrogatories to
- Wells Eddleman," dated March 18, 1983, at 6 - 7.1/
'Mr. Eddleman's responses to the interrogatories propounded by Applicants and the Staff. demonstrate that he has no documen-tary or other factual evidence to support his claim. When asked to detail facts that support the allegation that the mixing and dispersion models are deficient, Mr. Eddleman responded "I cannot as yet locate the materials used to prepare Eddleman 80." Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' First 1/ Mr. Eddleman has had the opportunity to pursue discovery since September 22, 1982. Since that time he has' propounded
- two sets of discovery requests to Applicants relating to Con-tention 80 and has received detailed, extensive responses to his questions." " Applicants' Answers to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Contentions 22A, 22B, 75, 80, 83-84 and 132 (First Set)," dated April 28, 1983,
~
i at 22 - 33; " Applicants' Answers to' Wells Eddleman's General i Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Contentions 64(f), 67 l and 80 (Third Set)," dated July 29, 1983, at 18 - 23. Appli-cants have produced hundreds of documents for Mr. Eddleman's inspection and Mr. Eddleman has copied thousands of pages of the documents for his own use.
i i I
l
. ~
-'-sy -- ,y v., ,,w.
I Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated March 21, 1983, at 41 (responding to Interrogatory 80-1(a) of Applicants' January 31, 1983 Interrogatories to Eddleman, supra). To this date, Mr.~Eddleman has not supple-mented his response. When asked if he contended that Appli-cants' models do not comply with the guidance of Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.113, Mr. Eddleman stated that "I don't know what these Reg Guides state." Id. at 43 (responding to Inter-rogatory 80-5(a) of Applicants' January 31, 1983 Interrogatories to Eddleman, supra).
Mr. Eddleman did state he is most concerned about unusual dispersion patterns that could be caused by " rainout" of radio-active materials. See id. at 42. Yet when questioned by the NRC Staff about the methodology used to reach the conclusion that " rainout" would cause doses of radioactivity to exceed 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits, Mr. Eddleman responded "I have not laid out a model and parameters to conclude this." " Wells Eddleman's Response to NRC Staff Interrogatories (First Round)," dated May 6, 1983, at 14 (responding to Interrogatory No. 41 of "NRC Staff Interrogatories to Wells Eddleman," dated March 18, 1983).
Furthermore, the few responses to interrogatories which do express some factual assertions on Contention 80 suggest that
. ~
_y .,,,,.c.. , . , . . - . . - , . + , , . ,, , , , , - , e,,. -. ~. , --
1 j
Mr. Eddleman has basic misconceptions about the modeling techniques themselves and about the effect that various conditions could have on the accuracy of the models. Mr.
Eddleman's answers to Applicants' discovery contain references to the alleged " wake effect" of the Harris facility, the possi-bility of turbulent conditions, and, repeatedly, to the hazard alleged to be created by " rainout" of radioactive particles.
" Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," dated Marc?. 21, 1983, at 41-43; " Wells Eddleman's Response to NRC
~
Staff Interrogatories (First Round)," dated May 6, 1983, at 12-14. As the attached McFeaters Affidavit demonstrates, Ap-plicants' model measures these effects where appropriate, but only to the extent consistent with the overriding goal of using conservative assumptions and ensuring compliance with the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20. With respect to Mr. Eddleman's concern about "raincut," the attached Lei Affi-davit demonstrates that any deposition of radioactive particu.lates from a gaseous effluent plume - by rainout or oth-erwise - will reduce the possible dose to man. Mr. Eddleman has not pointed to a single fact to support his contention that failure to measure these meteorological conditions is a viola-tion of the regulations or could in any way be deleterious to the health of residents in the vicinity of SHNPP.
. ~
e
.,-.-m,e .- ., --
Applicants, on the other hand, have. demonstrated that the models used for measuring dispersion of radioactive releases are consistent with applicable Regulatory Guides, apply state-of-the-art _ techniques and incorporate conservative assumptions that result in predictions which empirical studies have shown are far in excess of the doses which would actually be measured. This ensures that exposure can never exceed the 10 C.F.R. Part 20 standards or result in a hazard to public health -
and safety. The NRC Staff approved Applicants' accidental and routine release diffusion estimates in its Draft Safety Evalua-tion Report. D.S.E.R. 52.34-2.35.2/ Accordingly, Contention 80 is ripe for summary disposition.
II. ARGUMENT The basis for Contention 80 is that Applicants' mixing and dispersion models are inadequate because they underestimate potential exposure from radioactivity contained in releases 2/ In " Wells Eddleman's Response to Staff DEIS", dated June '
20, 1983, at 10, Mr. Eddleman asserted that the Draft Environ-mental Impact Statement contained language supporting Conten-tion 80. The Staff's responsu to Mr. Eddleman's statement about Contention 80 explicitly rejected that claim and pointed out that the language from the DEIS quoted by Mr. Eddleman was
" irrelevant to the allegations in Eddleman 80." "NRC Staff Re-sponse to Wells Eddleman's Response to the Staff's Draft Envi-ronmental Impact Statement," dated July 8, 1983, at 10.
9 ms
, , c ,_, -,-w ,m, -- -- --__.---,--e ,7
-m.---.-,.,,r.-g
from SIINPP. .Yet, as.the foregoing statement of facts demonstrates, Mr. Eddleman has made no attempt whatsoever to quantify the effect of alleged modeling deficiencies or to show that they could result in increased exposure'to the public.
The paper prepared by Mr. McFeaters explains in detail the methodology employed in Applicants' modeling techniques and demonstrates conclusively that the Gaussian dispersion model utilized by Applicants predicts exposure far in excess of that observed in field tests. Therefore, applying the standards governing summary disposition to Contention 80, it is clear that Applicants' motion should be granted.
Mathematical-models are commonly used to provide estimates of dispersion and mixing of releases of radioactive materials from commercial power plants. Exhibit B to McFeaters Affidsvit at 3 (hereinafter " Exhibit B"). The Gaussian plume model uti-lized by Applicants has been adopted by the NRC for use in estimating relative concentrations of radionuclides due to accidental and routine releases. Exhibit B at 7. In using l
this approved modeling technique, Applicants have followed the guidelines set forth in various regulatory guides, including Regulatory Guides 1.4, 1.24, 1.25, 1.77, 1.09, 1.111 and 1.145.
Exhibit B at 8.
e %
The Gaussian model is used for nuclear applications be-cause, in its generic form, it incorporates many conservative assumptions that ensure that the concentrations estimated by the model will exceed those that could actually be observed in real situations. Exhibit B at 8-16. As Exhibit B demon-strates, there is no question that the Gaussian model utilized by Applicants is generally accepted and has been approved in regulatory guides issued by the NRC Staff for use by applicants for operating licenses. Thus, the only genuine question that can be raised with respect to Contention 80 is whether the' specific form of the Gaussian model used by Applicants is defi-cient and fails to comply with applicable regulations or ensure the public health and safety.3/
Mr. Eddleman alleges that Applicants' model is deficient because it does not take into account various factors such as
" rainout" and turbulent weather conditions. Ironically, howev-er, the meteorological conditions that Mr. Eddleman claims should have been included in the model actually would result in
. greater mixing and dispersion and lower modelled concentrations of radioactivity in the plume. For this reason, those i
3/ It should be noted that the Staff has approved Applicants' short-term (accidental) and long-term (routine) dispersion estimates based on its own independent calculations. D.S.E.R.
52.3.4-2.3.5.
variables intentionally were omitted from Applicants' model in order to make the model more conservative - i.e., to overestimate the plume radioactivity. Thus, Mr. Eddleman's expressed concerns indicate a serious misunderstanding about the effect that inclusion of such variables would have on the accuracy of the nodel.
With regard to " rainout," the sole deficiency claimed with particularity in the contention at issue, the paper prepared by Mr. McFeaters on the basis of ten years experience in the field demonstrates that Applicants have elected not to account for rainout because rainout actually decreases the hazard of expo-sure from inhalation of radioactive pollutants. Exhibit B at 25 - 26. .Where rainout occurs, concentrations less than those predicted by Applicants' model would actually be observed in the atmosphere. Id. at 26. In a severe thunderstorm, such as that mentioned in Mr. Eddleman's "most limiting circumstance,"
the concentration in a plume would be reduced by a factor of
~~
two-three. Id. _
When materials are leached out of the atmosphere, the ex-posure hazard is greatly reduced because natural barriers exist to protect individuals from uptake from soil, water or vegeta-tion. Lei Affidavit at paragraph 4. As the affidavit of Mr. Lei, a radiological health-specialist, demonstrates, time
_9_
- - - - - - _ . m-, ,, .
..-4,. , - ._,-.- __,-- , m, - - _ _ . , ,_- . . _ - _ . , , , - , .
delays are associated with every potential pathway by which materials. scavenged by " rainout" can reach the human popula-tion. Id. at paragraph 6. With radioactive iodina, this time delay is particularly significant because of the short half-life of the isotope. Additional barriers are associated with other forms of radioactivity. With regard to .
radionuclides with longer half-lifes, other environmental bar-riers such as binding to soil inhibit the transfer of the radionuclide through food chains. Id. at paragraph 7. Thus, it is clear that potential uptake from soil, water or vegeta-tion would be substantially less than that expected from direct inhalation.
Thus, exclusion of rainout from the model contributes to the conser'stism of Applicants' estimate of potential hazard to the public. Exhibit B at 25. This approach is also consistent with the dictate of Regulatory Guide 1.111 which states that rainout may be considered at a facility with elevated releases and a distinct rainy season that corresponds to the grazing season. Regulatory Guide 1.111 at 12. Shearon Harris does not have elevated releases or a distinct rainy season, therefore it would be inappropriate to take rainout into account.
The same rationale applies to Applicants' decision to as-sume a very stable atmospheric condition, "G" stability, when
~.
, _ . - . _ _ _ , _ , , , . . . . - . . -m ._ _ , . . . _ - . , , , - - , _ . _ _ , _. _ _ - . , , _ - . , , ,, - _ _ _ _ - - , , - - - , -
\
l applying the approved model to SBNPP. Under stable conditions, concentrations of radioactivity will be higher than those observed under turbulent conditions.- "G" stability is a clas -
cification introduced by the FP.C for use in nuclear applica-tions. At "G" stability the relative concentration for a given wind speed is 2.5 times greater than that observed at the most stable condit1on normally assumed in non-nuclear applications.
Exhibit B at'20. In addition to using the unrealistic "G" sta-bility, the SHNPP model assumes a wind speed of .335 m/sec rather than the 1.0 m/sec assumption used in Regulatory Guide 1.4. Id. This wind speed represents the wind instrument's de-tection threshold. Because wind speed is inversely related to concentration, this extremely low wind. speed results in overestimates of concentration. The concentration at "G" sta- _
bility and wind speed of .335 m/sec exceeds that at "F" stabil-ity and wind speed of 1.0 m/sec by a factor of 7.5.4/ Id.
Thus, it is clear that as applied at SHNPP, assuming extremely stable atmospheric conditions and exceptionally low winds, the Gaussian dispersion model significantly overpredicts concentrations.
4/ At SHNPP the combination of "G" stability and wind speed as low as .33 m/sec occurred only 4.95% of the time on an annual basis, calculated independent of wind direction. When calculated on a wind dependent basis with wind from the north, this condition occurred only .549% of the time. FSAR at $2.3, Table 2.3.6-10.
11-i 9 %
t
- , - - - .---..,,..,-_...,...,.,.....,.,,-._..,,-.-,,,,n., ,,- -. - - ,--,.
4 _.
4 &
In addition-to the failure to take. credit for depletion of f- radioactive materials from rainout and turbulence, Applicants have' adopted other conservative assumptions that result in overestimation-of potential doses. The building wake effect results in a prediction of greater dispersion and lower concen-trations in a radioactive plume. The typical' Gaussian model contains a very conservative adjustment for this effect.
Exhibit B at 12-13. Applicants' model contains such a factor
- to account for building wake effect, but in factoring in the wake effect at SENPP, Applicants have used the smallest cross-sectional area of the reactor building, thus substantially lessening the importance of predicted wake effect. Id. at 24.
As a result, actual concentrations that might occur are signif-icantly overpredicted. Clearly, this approach contributes to the conservatism of Applicants' model.
Mr. McFeaters has also explained various other assumptions that contribute to the overall conservatism of Applicants' l model, including assuming release height to be at ground level (a worst case analysis because at ground level concentrations are highest), assuming constant wind direction during extremely stable meteorological conditions, and failing to account for
! the large horizontal meander of a plume under such stable i
conditions. Exhibit B at 18 - 23. He has demonstrated that r
i i
, ~
l
, - - , . . - ,,--,,-,-..n,,,-.--- --,.,~__.,,-..---._,..-----.~,...--,-..,,--,.,,,,,-,,_,,...,_-,,..----.,n,-,,,--- - . .
.. a_
the basic Gaussian dispersion model used at SHNPP. constitutes a state-of-the-art approach to nuclear modeling. It is clear from his paper that, when coupled with the site-specific con-servative assumptions utilized at SHNPP, the Gaussian model will predict concentrations in excess of those which actually would be observed in the field. This conservative approach is intentional and ensures compliance with the regulations governing both routine and accidental releases. 'Mr. Eddleman has suggested no competent evidence to the contrary.
13-
-,,,.-n - , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - , , - - - - - - - - - - ,n-,, ,, , - - .. ,-n-. . .,,--
III. . CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing and upon the facts set forth in the McFeaters Affidavit and Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, Applicants respectfully submit that their motion for summary disposition should be granted and that Eddleman Conten-tion 80 should be decidec in' Applicants' favor.
Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
Pamela H. Anderson Counsel For Applicants SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 26602 (919) 836-7707 Dated: September 1, 1983
,-. _ . , _ . . . . . _ , _ . .,, , . _ _ . , _ . , . . . . . . _ , . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . . _ , , , , - , . . _ .