|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20084K8771984-05-11011 May 1984 Intervenor B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Determination of Whether 791206 Order of Mod Should Be Sustained Is Only Outstanding Issue to Be Decided ML20087G7921984-03-15015 March 1984 Addendum to Stamiris Contention on Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators Addressing Late Filing Factors of 10CFR2.714 ML20081C5091984-03-0404 March 1984 Contention on Transamerica Delaval Diesel Generators Re Model Dsrv 12.Model Cannot Be Relied Upon to Perform Requisite Safety Function ML20081F8711983-10-28028 October 1983 Motion to Reopen & Suppl Record on Sinclair Contention 14,to Submit DA Sommers,Jp Bradley & CR Nefe Affidavits.Affidavits Provide Results of Postulated Evergreen Fog Sweep or Planted Barrier Analysis ML20081C9361983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Stay ASLB 830831 & 1006 Orders Denying Deponent Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Quash Subpoenas Pending Aslab Decision on Deponent 831021 Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20023A8241982-10-15015 October 1982 Reply to NRC & Applicant Responses to M Sinclair Revised Contentions 6,34,37,43,56 & 57.Contention 6,bases (A),(B) & (d)(4),Contention 43 & Contention 56,Basis 3,withdrawn. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065M7161982-10-15015 October 1982 Response to Util 820923 & NRC 820928 Response to B Stamiris New Contention Based on Fes.Gross Misrepresentation of Overall Costs & Benefits to Public Represented by Cost/ Benefit Analysis Demands Redress ML20063N7541982-10-0404 October 1982 Responses to Applicant & NRC 820903 & NRC 820910 Responses to M Sinclair Revised Contentions.Limiting Contention 31 to Litigation of Util Compliance W/Existing Requirements.Contention 32 Amended ML20065J7501982-09-30030 September 1982 Response Opposing M Sinclair Resubmitted Contention 56 on Station Blackout.Contention Lacks Requisite Basis & Specificity to Stand Alone.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H6691982-09-30030 September 1982 Response to M Sinclair 820920 Revised Contentions,Set Ii. Objects to Contentions 34(a),37 & 43 & Portions of Contentions 6 & 57.Util Nonconformance Rept & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H7201982-09-28028 September 1982 Responses Opposing B Stamiris 820913 Addendum to 820824 Cost Benefit Contention.Good Cause for Late Filing Not Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H6881982-09-28028 September 1982 Response to M Sinclair Resubmitted Contention on Table S-3. Contention Should Be Deferred Until Commission Issues Policy Statement.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20069F9451982-09-23023 September 1982 Response Opposing B Stamiris 820824 New Contention Challenging cost-benefit Analysis of Fes.Production Cost Estimates Unrepresentative,Inconsistent & Untimely & Provide Inadequate Basis for Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065C1221982-09-22022 September 1982 Revised Contentions (II) Based on Remainder of Discovery from NRC Per ASLB 820525 Order.Related Correspondence ML20065C1181982-09-20020 September 1982 Resubmission of Contention 56 on Station Blackout.Related Correspondence ML20027B2471982-09-13013 September 1982 Addendum to 820824 Cost/Benefit Contention on Dewatering Costs ML20027B2421982-09-0909 September 1982 Resubmitted Contention 1 Based on Encl Us Court of Appeals, DC Circuit,820816 Opinion That NRC Original,Interim & Final Table S-3 Rule Resulted from Inadequate Consideration of Environ Impacts ML20063E5381982-08-24024 August 1982 New Contention Based on Fes Re Cost Production & Cost Saving Analysis of Fes.Statement of Good Cause for Filing New Contention Encl ML20062L5491982-08-16016 August 1982 Page 36a of Util Further Answer to B Stamiris Petition to Intervene in OL Proceeding,Amended Contentions & Statement of Good Cause for Late Intervention,Inadvertently Omitted from Original Filing ML20062M9581982-08-13013 August 1982 Restated Contentions 6,8 & 16 Re QA Program.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M9801982-08-12012 August 1982 Revised Contentions Based on Discovery Per ASLB 820525 Order ML20062M8741982-08-12012 August 1982 Restated Contentions,Superseding Contentions Filed on 820718,23 & 0803 ML20062F7401982-08-0606 August 1982 New Contention 16 Adding Info That Should Be Covered as Part of Zack Co Nonconformance Rept Re Unverified Welder Qualifications for Fabrication Weld ML20062D5291982-08-0303 August 1982 New Contention 15 Re Documentation on Welds ML20058J7251982-08-0202 August 1982 Response Opposing MP Sinclair 820723 New Contention 14 & Request for Addl Time to Respond to New Contention 13 Until Prehearing Conference on 820812.Contention Has No Basis. Certificate of Svc & Related Documentation Encl ML20071K7901982-07-28028 July 1982 Further Answer Opposing B Stamiris Petition to Intervene as Supplemented by 820709 Amended Contentions.Petitioner Fails to Meet Requirements for Late Intervention ML20071K7831982-07-28028 July 1982 Response Opposing M Sinclair 820618 New Contentions. Contentions Untimely.Good Cause for Late Filing Not Shown. Contentions Lack Basis & Specificity &/Or Raise Issues Being Resolved in Another Forum ML20058D5591982-07-23023 July 1982 Addl New Contentions Based on Significant New Info ML20058B1501982-07-21021 July 1982 Response to M Sinclair 820618 Late Filed Contentions & Basis for Late Contentions.Contention 1 Should Be Deferred Pending Commission Guidance.Contentions 2-10 Opposed.Contentions 11 & 12 Unopposed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054N0241982-07-0909 July 1982 Amended OL Contentions ML20054N0101982-07-0909 July 1982 Statement of Good Cause for Late Intervention.Issues Raised Have Occurred Since Inception of 1978 OL Proceeding ML20054K4861982-07-0101 July 1982 Response to ASLB 820625 Order,Specifying Reasons for Late Filing of New Contentions ML20054H7571982-06-18018 June 1982 Contentions for OL Hearing ML20054H5941982-06-18018 June 1982 New Contentions for OL Hearing.Proof of Svc Encl ML19332B1141980-09-0909 September 1980 Suppl to Sk Warren Petition to Intervene & Amended Suppl to B Stamiris Petition to Intervene.Alleges Inadequacy of Permanent Dewatering Procedures & CPC Financial Pressures Adversely Affecting Resolution of Soil Settlement Issues ML19331D8821980-08-30030 August 1980 Response to Sk Warren 800814 Suppl & B Stamiris Amend to Petitions to Intervene.Opposes Warren Contentions 2 & Stamiris Contentions 1,2,3 & 5.Urges Rephrasing of Stamiris Contention 4 Re Qa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331E0721980-08-27027 August 1980 Contention Alleging That Class 9 Accident Will Cause Massive Flow of Radioactive Matls Into Saginaw Bay River Which Provides Drinking Water to Area.Urges Full Disclosure Per NEPA ML19331D3131980-08-25025 August 1980 Amended Petition to Intervene Alleging That Inability of Soil to Support Plant Structure W/O Compaction Procedures Violates Requirements.Claims That FSAR Statements Are False & Evasive ML19344A5251980-08-18018 August 1980 Amended Petition to Intervene Alleging Inability of Soil Conditions to Support Plant Structures.Alleges Falsification,Evasiveness & Reluctance in FSAR Statements Re Fill Soils & Seismic Characteristics ML19344A7581980-08-14014 August 1980 Suppl to Petition to Intervene Alleging Poor Quality of Fill Soil Composition & Inadequacy of Dewatering & Preloading Procedures ML19330B6421980-07-31031 July 1980 Response Stating No Opposition to Wh Marshall Present Intervention Re Interest & Standing.Reserves Right of Future Objection Depending on Substance of Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329G1211980-07-0808 July 1980 Response Stating No Present Opposition to Sk Warren,Sd Reist,Gc Wilson & Ma Race Petitions to Intervene Re License Mod.Reserves Right for Future Objection & Urges Representation by Single Spokesman.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19320B0121980-07-0101 July 1980 Response Stating No Present Opposition to Wa Thibodeau,Tr Miller,Pa Race,B Stamiris & C Gilbert Petitions to Intervene.Reserves Right to Oppose Participation in Future Development & Urges Consolidation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D2041980-06-26026 June 1980 Petition to Intervene Re Order for CP Mod,Alleging That Unresolved Soil Settlement Issue Will Create Adverse Safety Problems & Will Result in Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D0651980-06-25025 June 1980 Petition to Intervene in CP Mod Proceeding,Alleging That Unresolved Soil Settlement Problems Will Create Adverse Safety Problems.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D1871980-06-25025 June 1980 Petition to Intervene in CP Mod Proceeding,Alleging That Unresolved Soil Settlement Problems Will Adversely Affect Safety & Will Create Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use.Questions Integrity of Const.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D2031980-06-24024 June 1980 Petition to Intervene Re Order for CP Mod,Alleging That Mod Will Result in Unsafe & Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use & Will Create Adverse Environ Effects. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19338C1541980-06-18018 June 1980 Petition to Intervene in Hearings on Util Application for CP Re Concern Over Excessive Settlement & Soil Deficiencies of Diesel Generator Bldg Through Releases of Radiation.Requests Mod to Cp.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318A5611980-06-16016 June 1980 Petition to Intervene Re Order for Mod of Cps.Alleges Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use Which Will Create Adverse Environ Effects on Cities of Midland,Saginaw & Bay City.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A7341978-10-31031 October 1978 Contentions of Intervenor,Mp Sinclair,Supplementing 780605 Petition to Intervene.Paragraphs 1 Through 8 Are Restated. Proof of Svc Encl 1984-05-11
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20084K8771984-05-11011 May 1984 Intervenor B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Determination of Whether 791206 Order of Mod Should Be Sustained Is Only Outstanding Issue to Be Decided ML20087G7921984-03-15015 March 1984 Addendum to Stamiris Contention on Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators Addressing Late Filing Factors of 10CFR2.714 ML20081C5091984-03-0404 March 1984 Contention on Transamerica Delaval Diesel Generators Re Model Dsrv 12.Model Cannot Be Relied Upon to Perform Requisite Safety Function ML20081F8711983-10-28028 October 1983 Motion to Reopen & Suppl Record on Sinclair Contention 14,to Submit DA Sommers,Jp Bradley & CR Nefe Affidavits.Affidavits Provide Results of Postulated Evergreen Fog Sweep or Planted Barrier Analysis ML20081C9361983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Stay ASLB 830831 & 1006 Orders Denying Deponent Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Quash Subpoenas Pending Aslab Decision on Deponent 831021 Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20023A8241982-10-15015 October 1982 Reply to NRC & Applicant Responses to M Sinclair Revised Contentions 6,34,37,43,56 & 57.Contention 6,bases (A),(B) & (d)(4),Contention 43 & Contention 56,Basis 3,withdrawn. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065M7161982-10-15015 October 1982 Response to Util 820923 & NRC 820928 Response to B Stamiris New Contention Based on Fes.Gross Misrepresentation of Overall Costs & Benefits to Public Represented by Cost/ Benefit Analysis Demands Redress ML20063N7541982-10-0404 October 1982 Responses to Applicant & NRC 820903 & NRC 820910 Responses to M Sinclair Revised Contentions.Limiting Contention 31 to Litigation of Util Compliance W/Existing Requirements.Contention 32 Amended ML20065J7501982-09-30030 September 1982 Response Opposing M Sinclair Resubmitted Contention 56 on Station Blackout.Contention Lacks Requisite Basis & Specificity to Stand Alone.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H6691982-09-30030 September 1982 Response to M Sinclair 820920 Revised Contentions,Set Ii. Objects to Contentions 34(a),37 & 43 & Portions of Contentions 6 & 57.Util Nonconformance Rept & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H7201982-09-28028 September 1982 Responses Opposing B Stamiris 820913 Addendum to 820824 Cost Benefit Contention.Good Cause for Late Filing Not Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H6881982-09-28028 September 1982 Response to M Sinclair Resubmitted Contention on Table S-3. Contention Should Be Deferred Until Commission Issues Policy Statement.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20069F9451982-09-23023 September 1982 Response Opposing B Stamiris 820824 New Contention Challenging cost-benefit Analysis of Fes.Production Cost Estimates Unrepresentative,Inconsistent & Untimely & Provide Inadequate Basis for Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065C1221982-09-22022 September 1982 Revised Contentions (II) Based on Remainder of Discovery from NRC Per ASLB 820525 Order.Related Correspondence ML20065C1181982-09-20020 September 1982 Resubmission of Contention 56 on Station Blackout.Related Correspondence ML20027B2471982-09-13013 September 1982 Addendum to 820824 Cost/Benefit Contention on Dewatering Costs ML20027B2421982-09-0909 September 1982 Resubmitted Contention 1 Based on Encl Us Court of Appeals, DC Circuit,820816 Opinion That NRC Original,Interim & Final Table S-3 Rule Resulted from Inadequate Consideration of Environ Impacts ML20063E5381982-08-24024 August 1982 New Contention Based on Fes Re Cost Production & Cost Saving Analysis of Fes.Statement of Good Cause for Filing New Contention Encl ML20062L5491982-08-16016 August 1982 Page 36a of Util Further Answer to B Stamiris Petition to Intervene in OL Proceeding,Amended Contentions & Statement of Good Cause for Late Intervention,Inadvertently Omitted from Original Filing ML20062M9581982-08-13013 August 1982 Restated Contentions 6,8 & 16 Re QA Program.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M9801982-08-12012 August 1982 Revised Contentions Based on Discovery Per ASLB 820525 Order ML20062M8741982-08-12012 August 1982 Restated Contentions,Superseding Contentions Filed on 820718,23 & 0803 ML20062F7401982-08-0606 August 1982 New Contention 16 Adding Info That Should Be Covered as Part of Zack Co Nonconformance Rept Re Unverified Welder Qualifications for Fabrication Weld ML20062D5291982-08-0303 August 1982 New Contention 15 Re Documentation on Welds ML20058J7251982-08-0202 August 1982 Response Opposing MP Sinclair 820723 New Contention 14 & Request for Addl Time to Respond to New Contention 13 Until Prehearing Conference on 820812.Contention Has No Basis. Certificate of Svc & Related Documentation Encl ML20071K7901982-07-28028 July 1982 Further Answer Opposing B Stamiris Petition to Intervene as Supplemented by 820709 Amended Contentions.Petitioner Fails to Meet Requirements for Late Intervention ML20071K7831982-07-28028 July 1982 Response Opposing M Sinclair 820618 New Contentions. Contentions Untimely.Good Cause for Late Filing Not Shown. Contentions Lack Basis & Specificity &/Or Raise Issues Being Resolved in Another Forum ML20058D5591982-07-23023 July 1982 Addl New Contentions Based on Significant New Info ML20058B1501982-07-21021 July 1982 Response to M Sinclair 820618 Late Filed Contentions & Basis for Late Contentions.Contention 1 Should Be Deferred Pending Commission Guidance.Contentions 2-10 Opposed.Contentions 11 & 12 Unopposed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054N0241982-07-0909 July 1982 Amended OL Contentions ML20054N0101982-07-0909 July 1982 Statement of Good Cause for Late Intervention.Issues Raised Have Occurred Since Inception of 1978 OL Proceeding ML20054K4861982-07-0101 July 1982 Response to ASLB 820625 Order,Specifying Reasons for Late Filing of New Contentions ML20054H7571982-06-18018 June 1982 Contentions for OL Hearing ML20054H5941982-06-18018 June 1982 New Contentions for OL Hearing.Proof of Svc Encl ML19332B1141980-09-0909 September 1980 Suppl to Sk Warren Petition to Intervene & Amended Suppl to B Stamiris Petition to Intervene.Alleges Inadequacy of Permanent Dewatering Procedures & CPC Financial Pressures Adversely Affecting Resolution of Soil Settlement Issues ML19331D8821980-08-30030 August 1980 Response to Sk Warren 800814 Suppl & B Stamiris Amend to Petitions to Intervene.Opposes Warren Contentions 2 & Stamiris Contentions 1,2,3 & 5.Urges Rephrasing of Stamiris Contention 4 Re Qa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331E0721980-08-27027 August 1980 Contention Alleging That Class 9 Accident Will Cause Massive Flow of Radioactive Matls Into Saginaw Bay River Which Provides Drinking Water to Area.Urges Full Disclosure Per NEPA ML19331D3131980-08-25025 August 1980 Amended Petition to Intervene Alleging That Inability of Soil to Support Plant Structure W/O Compaction Procedures Violates Requirements.Claims That FSAR Statements Are False & Evasive ML19344A5251980-08-18018 August 1980 Amended Petition to Intervene Alleging Inability of Soil Conditions to Support Plant Structures.Alleges Falsification,Evasiveness & Reluctance in FSAR Statements Re Fill Soils & Seismic Characteristics ML19344A7581980-08-14014 August 1980 Suppl to Petition to Intervene Alleging Poor Quality of Fill Soil Composition & Inadequacy of Dewatering & Preloading Procedures ML19330B6421980-07-31031 July 1980 Response Stating No Opposition to Wh Marshall Present Intervention Re Interest & Standing.Reserves Right of Future Objection Depending on Substance of Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329G1211980-07-0808 July 1980 Response Stating No Present Opposition to Sk Warren,Sd Reist,Gc Wilson & Ma Race Petitions to Intervene Re License Mod.Reserves Right for Future Objection & Urges Representation by Single Spokesman.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19320B0121980-07-0101 July 1980 Response Stating No Present Opposition to Wa Thibodeau,Tr Miller,Pa Race,B Stamiris & C Gilbert Petitions to Intervene.Reserves Right to Oppose Participation in Future Development & Urges Consolidation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D2041980-06-26026 June 1980 Petition to Intervene Re Order for CP Mod,Alleging That Unresolved Soil Settlement Issue Will Create Adverse Safety Problems & Will Result in Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D0651980-06-25025 June 1980 Petition to Intervene in CP Mod Proceeding,Alleging That Unresolved Soil Settlement Problems Will Create Adverse Safety Problems.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D1871980-06-25025 June 1980 Petition to Intervene in CP Mod Proceeding,Alleging That Unresolved Soil Settlement Problems Will Adversely Affect Safety & Will Create Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use.Questions Integrity of Const.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318D2031980-06-24024 June 1980 Petition to Intervene Re Order for CP Mod,Alleging That Mod Will Result in Unsafe & Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use & Will Create Adverse Environ Effects. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19338C1541980-06-18018 June 1980 Petition to Intervene in Hearings on Util Application for CP Re Concern Over Excessive Settlement & Soil Deficiencies of Diesel Generator Bldg Through Releases of Radiation.Requests Mod to Cp.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19318A5611980-06-16016 June 1980 Petition to Intervene Re Order for Mod of Cps.Alleges Inefficient Exercise of Atomic Energy Use Which Will Create Adverse Environ Effects on Cities of Midland,Saginaw & Bay City.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A7341978-10-31031 October 1978 Contentions of Intervenor,Mp Sinclair,Supplementing 780605 Petition to Intervene.Paragraphs 1 Through 8 Are Restated. Proof of Svc Encl 1984-05-11
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20070E4671991-02-26026 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Upgrading Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors.Recommends That NRC Deny Petition to Increase Design Basis Threat for Security ML20207C1331986-12-18018 December 1986 Order Terminating CPPR-81 & CPPR-82,per Util 860711 Motion to Withdraw Applications for OLs ML20215E7301986-12-17017 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Authorizing Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissing OL Proceeding,Per Applicant 860711 Motion. Served on 861218 ML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding ML20214Q4431986-12-0303 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204 ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214T7361986-09-26026 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Dismissing OM Proceeding as Moot & Deferring Action on Applicant Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application Pending NRC Preparation of Environ Assessment.Served on 860929 ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212B0311986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Withdrawing Retention of Jurisdiction Over Radon Issue Presented in Facility CP Proceeding & Vacating ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils in Consolidated CP Mod & OL Proceeding.Served on 860801 ML20212B0521986-07-31031 July 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860815 for Util & Other Parties to Respond to Questions Posed by 860716 ASLB Order.Time Extended Until 860825 for NRC Response to ASLB Questions & Util Motion.Served on 860801 ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E2851986-07-16016 July 1986 Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717 ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20137E0041985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding ML20137D9651985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F6421985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N3771985-08-30030 August 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl DD-84-17, Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 8506241985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 850624 ML20127N7591985-06-20020 June 1985 Transcript of Commission 850620 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc Concerning Denial of 2.206 Petition for Midland plant,SECY-85-60 Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule & Shoreham Order.Pp 1-4 ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4751985-04-19019 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850405 Order Re Dismissal of OL Application.Application Neither Abandoned Nor Delayed in Dilutory Manner.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20092J0241984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA 1991-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
r -
r OTsN
$2 @ 19 Y[Eb.f. h U.S. NUCIIAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION In the matter of Docket,Jos.
CPCo. Midland Plant 50- M OL Units 1 and 2 50-330 OL BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD STAMIRIS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT AND STAFF RESPONSES TO NEW STAMIRIS CONIENTION BASED ON FES 10/15/82 According to the Board's 10-5-82 Order, Intervenor Stamiris submits the follow-ing response to the 9423-82 Applicant respons,a and the 9-28-82 Staff response to the 8-24-82 Stamiris contention which states: i I contend that the new cost production, cost savings analysis of the FES, represented by revised table 2.1 (p. A-32) and the. revised cost /
benefit analysis (p. 6-4) and revised economic statements derived there-from do not accurately and fully represent the cost / benefit balance of the Midland plant to the public, and should therefore not be accepted as presented.
In opposing the' contention overall, the Applicant claims that with one minor exception, "the Staffs assessment of costs.in table 6.1 of the FES did not change from assessments made in the DES." Yet in comparing DES table 6.1 to FES table 6.1, 7 of the 8 components referenced in the Benefits portion of the dnalysis increased, while the production cost totals remained the same (and if averaged out over 1984-88 like the benefits are, actually decrease between the DES and the FES).
BASIS I UNREPRESENTATIVE AND INCONSISTANT ETHODOLOGY IN PRODUCTION COST ESTIMAIES Although the Staff was not using an averaging approach in computing production costs in either the lES or the'FES, such an approach should be used to be consis-
~
8210210370 821015 5
(
{DRADOCK 05000329 PDR
~ $
. l 2
tant with their averaging approach to computing reduced generating costs. Average production costs over 1984-88 would be 24.4 m/kwh in the DES while the average production costs over 1984-88 in the FES would be 23.8 m/kwh. However the NRC uses neither of these production cost averages, but uses the 1984 data alone to present the more favorable (to the plant operation) production cost of 21 m/kwh in both the DES and FES.
The NRC did not object to Basis I. In response to the Applicants objection, I have corrected the errors in my 8-24-82 production cost review concerning t.he
" abandonment" of an DES averaging approach, and the arithmetic error. The basis for Basis I remains the same--that use of 1984 data alone for production costs in FES table 6.1 represents an inconsistancy between the averaging methodology for benefits, and the less representative single year data for costs. Ihe selective use of data in this manner to present the most favorable forecast to plant operation is inappropriate, and outweighs the applicants argument of untimeliness since b'the same methodology was used in the DES.
BASIS II: IACK OF SUPPORTING DATA The NRC does not explain the basis for- their changes in the table 6.1 cost /
l benefit analysis between the DES and FES except to note that "unreferenced econo-nde values are derived from the Applicants' comment letter of 4-2-82 Appendix A (FES)." The Applicants' FES comments institute significant changes, and conflict-ing results in the cost / benefit aptlysis without supporting data.
Those Applicant comment, an; re2ultant changes have apparently been accepted at face value without ase.3;xgr, . analysis by the NRC. Yet the NRC objects to l
this basis for my contention--saying that I must supply the basis for proving the inaccuracy of the Staff's assessment. I cannot assess the basis for the Staff's change in analysis when they have not provided any basis or assessment themselves.
J .
3 The Applicant similarily objects that I have not provided adequate basis and specificity for Basis II of my contention. The very issue that I am contending here is that there is not sufficient basis or specificity provided in the Applicants i FES comments, which the NRC has accepted , to justify the cost benefit changes instituted between the DES and FES.
The increased benefits and decreased costs (over 1984-88) between the DES and FES analyses are based on several applicant comments. Comment #22 (p. A-31, EES) notes a change from 1,400,000 lb. to 1,800,000 lb. in Dow's low pressure steam reservation. This steam reservation change is a basis for EES increases in replace-ment energy costs, and resultant increases in " reduced generating costs" in table 6.1, cited in comment #16 (A-31, FES). This change in Dow's steam reservation is also a basis for an increased lifetime capacity factor of 66% (from 60% in DES) as cited in comment #19 (A-31 FES), and the resultant table 6.1 increase in elec-trical energy to 8 bi1} ion kw/ year (from 7 billion, kw/ year, DES).
Why would an increase in Dow's steam reservation. increase the costs of replace-ment power (#16) and increase the capacity factor for electrical production (#19)?
If a larger proportion of the reactor's thermal heat is used to produce steam for Dow, the electrical capacity factor should be correspondingly reduced, not increased.
A second Applicant comment upon which changes are based between the DES and FES cost / benefit analysis is the reference to the " December 14, 1981 load forecast l
revision." The extent and direction (upward or downward) of this revision are not I
( provided, nor is an explanation of its effect on the replacement energy costs of l
sub-tables 2.1 between the DES and FES.
i Both the Staff and the Applicant are correct that I did not contend that the Staff has made an incorrect assessment of replacement energy costs, I contend that they nade no assessment of changes in replacement energy costs between the DES and FES analysis. No one can assess unexplained changes to determine if those changes are correct or'. incorrect. I contend that supporting data and explanations must
'.t 4
be provided to justify the changes and inconsistancies in the cost / benefit analy-
~
sis, beyond a mere submittal by the Applicant and acceptance by the NRC of new figure s.
BASIS III: SAVINGS AS AN ACTUAL BENEFIT IS INVALID The Staff does not object to Basis III, the Applicant contends that I have "mischaracterized the meaning of the cost (savings) figures involved" in calling the cost savings a hypothetical savings of not operating the plant. This is not a mischaracterization, for the FES $279 million/ year " reduced generating costs" which represents the difference between plant operating costs and "would be" replace-ment energy costs, is indeed a hypothetical savings. It counts extra dollars udch would have been spent if the plant did not operate, as though they were actual dollars Sained by plant operation.
To repeat the 8-24-82 " check book" analogy in a more precise response to Con-g sumer's objection, the inclusion of cost savings as an actual benefit of plant operation is like buying a $100 wool coat (nuclear production costs) instead of a $1000 fur coat (replacement energy costs) and then adding the $900 difference
" saved" into your check book as a deposit.
Furthermore the Applicant asserts that replacement energy costs are properly taken into account at the OL stage "if construction of a substitute facility could reasonably be expected as a consequence of abandonment." By making the assumption that a rep.acenent facility would be necessary, the applicant is using need-for-power argunents like those which underly the whole cost savings philosophy, expressed as " reduced generating costs" in the cost / benefit analysis. A double standard is used to allow the Applicant to take credit for replacement energy costs in a cost /
benefit analysis while intervenors are denied the consideration of the same replace-ment energy or need for power issues.
For these reasons, and because the cost savings figures do not represent real benefits of plant operation, they should be excluded from the cost / benefit analysis.
5 The serious misrepresentation of information to the public in cost savings or
" reduced generating costs of the FES cost benefit analysis far outweighs Consumer's untimeliness objection, that these cost savingst were also included in the DES and thus could have been addressed sooner. In addition, these invalid . cost., savings figures are judged to be. a-large benefit by the NRC in th.e overall ,an,alysis.
BASIS IV: COST SAVINGS INCREASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED If cost savings figures are allowed to remain in the cost / benefit analysis as " reduced generating costs" then the increased savings assessment from the DES to the FES must be questioned. The Staff does not object to the Basis IV contention that these cost savings increases are not justified as long as it deals only with the assessnent of replacement energy costs, not need-for power arguments.
The increase from the DES cost savings of $200 million/ year to the FES $279 million/ year is based on Consumer's overreliance on purchased power. A 70% reliance on purchased power is maintained (sub-tables 2.1 DES, FES) despite a rise in pur-chased power costs from $50 million/kwh, DES to $71 million/kwh, FES, which accounts for the rise in DES to FES cost savings figures. The Applicant offers no objection regarding this argument.
The lack of basis or explanation of increased replacement energy costs has been addressed in Basis II, as Staff and Applicant objections note.
BASIS V: COST CONSIDERATIONS ALLOWED ONE PARTY CAhTOT BE DENIED ANOTHER PARTY Bu h the Staff and the Applicant object to this Basis as a restatement of my contention la, which the Board denied in their 8-14-82 Order. Yet neither the Staff nor the Applicant addresses the key statement which justifies acdressing con-struction cost issues in this new context. It is that Consumer's is allowed to take account of "recently revised plant and production cost data ' based on the latest e
l 6
cost forecasts" (emphasis added, A-28, #3, FES) to upwardly revise the FES benefits i
from those set forth in the DES.
For example, the revision of construction costs from $3.1 billion to $3.9 billion is accepted as a basis for the DES to FES increase in the tax base benefit fc ;bic 6.1 (comment #92, A-46, FES). This " local property tax" benefit is one of the two impacts in the cost benefit judged "large" by the NRC.
Although Consumer's is allowed to take credit for the very latest construction cost forecosts to increase the benefits of plant operation in the cost / benefit analy-sis, intervenors are held to original construction cost estimates which are over
$3 billion too low (cn: are completely denied such cost consideratiod)in the arguments presented by the NRC and Consumer's.
Niether .ths staff.sor the Applicant respond to my new arguments for consider-ing construction costs which are based on the flexibility in the wording of the recent commission rulemaking (47. Fed. Reg. 12940-42) which notes that increased (financial costs since the c.p. review should generally not be considered at the OL stage since such factors would be unlikely to tip the cost / benefit balance. Midland's 13 fold construction cost increase
- since the c.p. stage, and the FEchigan Public Service Commission policies which include construction costs as a part of the operat-ing ratebase to the public once the plant operates (8-24-82 attachment) certainly qualify this plant as the exception to the rule forseen by the wording of the recent construction-cost-rulemaking.
Furthermore, the arguments regarding "the manner in which construction costs were in fact accounted for in the environmental cost / benefit analysis at the OL stage" and the likelihood of qy "nisconstruing" the effects of factoring in the cost benefit analysis raised by the applicant at the prehearing conference and noted in the Boards 8-14-82 order are themselves erroneous.
- The $265 million c.p. estimate comes from a S. Howell 3/80 statemen4 CPCs 1977 FES $554 millien estimate does not affect the validity of these arguments though.
7 The Staff and Applicant position that construction costs are not taken into account in the cost benefit analysis is untrue, as seen in the "large" tax increase benefit, and the acknowledged revisions in " plant and production cost data, based on latest cost forecasts" (A-23, #3, FES).
The significance of these construction cost issues, the existance of a double-standard. for various hearing parties, and the exceptional circumstances (in terms of cost increases and MPSC policies) which Midland represents, make inclusion of
?
construction cost issues in the cost benefit analysis a difficult but necessary af-firnation for this licensing board in this OL proceeding.
BASIS VI: NEPA REQUIREbENTS At the prehearing conference Mr. Bishop argued that the Staff's cost benefit analysis failed to examine the. "whole project" according to NEPA requirements.
l This argument does not contest the validity of the NRC's two step licensing process as the NRC asserts in objecting to this basis, it simply. refers to the NEPA require-ment that whenever the agency conducts a cost / benefit analysis, it must address the net costs and benefits involved (40 CFR, Sec.1502 p. 23; .NRDC v. Morton, 458-F 2nd 827, 833 (DC cir.197'2)). Furthermore the NRC has an obligation if the costs involved have changed, to support or redo the cost / benefit balance in question (40 CFR, Sec.1502.9 (c) (1); NRDC v. Callaway, 524 F 79, 91-92, 2nd cir.).
i -
The Staff also argues that " sunk construction costs affect neither the costs l nor benefits of (plant) operation," and therefore cannot be considered at this i
a
! OL star,e, yet they have considered the " revised plant and production cost data based on latest cost forecasts" valid in revisin6 the cost benefit analysis of the FES.
The two step licensing process of the NRC is based upon the principle that construction of the facility is conducted at the financial risk of the applicant (PRDC v. International Union of Elec. Radio and Machine Workers, 367 US 8961961),
_y.- _ . , . . , - - , _ -.,,__
_ -g ,, _ . - . , - ,
- 8
.i (Porter County Chapter I.W.L.' v. NRC, 606 F2d 1363,1369-7, (DC Cir.1979)). There is no ultimate guarantee of an operators license on the basis of " sunk costs" This often repeated assertion of the NRC and Consumer's in allowing and justi-fying the progression of construction and remedial work at Midland prior to reso-lution of safety issues is dependent on the ability or willingness of the NRC to base final licensing, judgements on safety alone. Yet NRC witnesses have testified that sunk costs are considered in evaluating the adequacy of remedial fixes (tr.
4463-4, OM-OL) at this OL stage, costs are considered in granting exemptions from, design requirements in the SER at the OL stage (SER 5.3.1.4, p. 5-21) and construc-tion costs are considered in the OL cost / benefit analysis as discussed in Basis V.
These cost considerations by the NRC at the OL stage have the effect of negat-ing any construction risk to the applicant. For when the NRC states that construc-tion costs are not relevant for inclusion in the cost benefit analysis despite their blelective application of construction cost considerations, a plant could cost 50 billion and it would not matter, even if these cost were to became a part of the operating ratebase as is the case in Michigan.
i A valid assessment if all the costs and benefits is required of the NRC accord-ing to NEPA and in order to present a fair assessment to the public for whom the cost / benefit analysis is performed. The Applicants objection that my basis VI is deficient and lacking specificity--is itself vague and unspecific and , thus impossible to respond to.
ADDENDUM: DEWATERING COSTS i.
Although the DES did omit consideration of dewatering operating expenses, like FES cost benefit analysis, the omission cannot be justified on the basis of an untimely contention alone. I submit that an assessment of permanent dewatering expenses should be considered along with the operation and maintenence costs if these costs are to be valid for Midland.
T 'T 9
CONCLUSION In accepting the Staffs argument that a contention "may be accepted only to the extent that its bases are adequate," I assert that this contention must be accepted on the t.dequacy of its many bases. In fact, the gross misrepresentation of the PEb overall costs and benefits to the public which this cost / benefit analysis represents demanos redress in the form of OL contentions and ASLB consideration.
Respectfully Submitted, Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Freeland, MI 48623 cc. ASLB members W4 Paton, NRC M. Miller, CPC q Secretary, NRC 4
- - - + - ,,-,e -. .,,..v.- - - - - -