Responses by Applicant to Motions by Intervenor to Reopen Environ Hearing to Add Contentions.Applicant Submits That Each Motion Should Be DeniedML20064C064 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Mcguire, McGuire ![Duke Energy icon.png](/w/images/7/75/Duke_Energy_icon.png) |
---|
Issue date: |
09/25/1978 |
---|
From: |
Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7810140127 |
Download: ML20064C064 (14) |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212D1771999-09-20020 September 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50,App A,General Design Criterion 57 Re Isolation of Main Steam Branch Lines Penetrating Containment ML20210K7351997-08-18018 August 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities (Effective Immediately).Rj Nelson Prohibited for 1 Yr from Date of Order from Engaging in or Exercising Control Over Individuals Engaged in NRC-licensed Activities TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20044G7371993-05-25025 May 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Opposes Rule ML20101R5931992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Opposes Rule ML20147F3231988-03-0303 March 1988 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $100,000 within 30 Days of Order Date ML20214F4411987-04-24024 April 1987 Endorsements 35 & 36 to Maelu Policy MF-101 & Endorsements 43 & 44 Nelia Policy NF-248 ML20203N3261986-09-19019 September 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000 ML20133P9591985-07-26026 July 1985 Unexecuted Amend 8 to Indemnity Agreement B-83,modifying Definition of Radioactive Matl as Listed ML20127G4261985-06-21021 June 1985 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000 for Violations Noted During Special Safety Insp on 841102-03 Re Failure of Upper Head Injection Accumulator Sys Isolation Valves to Close at Required Water Level ML20078C2271983-09-0202 September 1983 Application for Withholding Proprietary McGuire Post-Mod Steam Generator Tube Vibration Monitoring Program, (Ref 10CFR2.790) ML20054M1881982-07-0808 July 1982 Order Extending Time Until 820715 for Commission to Determine Whether to Review ALAB-669 ML20054L2941982-07-0101 July 1982 Order Extending Time Until 820708 for Commission to Determine Whether to Review ALAB-669 ML20054J1601982-06-24024 June 1982 Order Extending Time Until 820701 for Commission to Review ALAB-669 ML20054G2071982-06-17017 June 1982 Order Extending Time Until 820624 for Commission to Determine Whether to Review ALAB-669 ML20054F5341982-06-10010 June 1982 Order Extending Time Until 820617 for Commission to Decide Whether to Review ALAB-669 ML20140B5981981-09-10010 September 1981 Transcript of 810910 OL Hearing in Bethesda,Md Re Carolina Environ Study Group Appeal from Alab 790418 Initial Decision & 810526 Supplemental Initial Decision.Pp 1-195 ML20010C0881981-08-17017 August 1981 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004F4851981-06-16016 June 1981 Answer Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group 810606 Request to Stay ASLB 810419 & 0526 Decisions.Util Compliance W/Regulations Entitles ASLB to Find Facility Can Be Operated W/O Undue Risk to Public Health.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004F0131981-06-0808 June 1981 Exceptions to ASLB 810526 Supplemental Initial Decision & 790418 Initial Decision.Aslb Erred in Rejecting Jl Riley Evidence as Expert Witness & Decision That Riley Affidavit Not Responsive.Affidavit of Suc Encl ML20004D4161981-06-0505 June 1981 Request for Stay of Initial & Supplemental Initial Decisions.Commission Should Refer Decisions to ASLAP for Review.Potential for Irreparable Harm Due to Serve Hydrogen Explosion Is Great.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20004D4231981-06-0505 June 1981 Request for Stay of Initial & Supplemental Initial Decisions.Aslb Lacks Basis for Finding Operation Would Not Expose Public to Undue Risk Since Board Did Not Determine Consequences of Shell Rupture.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20004C8571981-06-0101 June 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810515 Motion to Permit Appeal of ASLB 810506 Order Denying Util Request for 35% Power Operations.Party May Not Appeal Favorable Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003G6701981-04-20020 April 1981 Addenda & Corrigendum to Carolina Environ Study Group 810414 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ML19343D3451981-04-17017 April 1981 Response Opposing Applicant Request for Waiver,Exception or Exemption from 10CFR2,App B.No Special Circumstances Exist to Waive Procedures ML19345G9021981-04-17017 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810402 Motion Questioning Util 810324 Request for OL for 35% Power level.TMI-type Accident Is Not Credible.Proposed Order & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347E2921981-04-14014 April 1981 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Supplemental Initial Decision Re Accident Credibility, Hydrogen Generation,Operational Aspects & Hydrogen Combustion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9171981-04-0909 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810406 Request for Extension to File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Applicant Transcripts Available to Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9731981-04-0808 April 1981 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350D2471981-04-0606 April 1981 Request for 10-day Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Counsel Occupied W/Other Cases. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343D1461981-04-0606 April 1981 Response Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group 810302 Request for Certification or Referral.Request Unnecessary Since Commission Has Specifically Addressed Issue. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9791981-04-0303 April 1981 Response to Jl Riley 810327 Affidavit Re Polyurethane Pyrolysis in Form of Encl Wh Rasin Affidavit ML19347D9761981-04-0303 April 1981 Response Opposing Applicant 810327 Submittal of Jl Riley Affidavit & Affirmation of Svc.Filing Is Contrary to ASLB Ruling.Record Is Closed & Filing Is Not Responsive ML19347D9811981-04-0303 April 1981 Affidavit Re Temp Effects on Polyurethane Foam.If Fiberglass Insulation on Air Handling Ducts Is Considered,Calculations Would Be More Conservative.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350D2501981-04-0202 April 1981 Reply Opposing Applicant 810324 Motion for License Authorizing Up to 35% Rated Power Operation.Alleged Need to Bolster Util Summer Reserve Is Result of Scheduling Oconee 1 Maint During Summer Peak.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126H3021981-03-27027 March 1981 Affidavit Supplementing 810319 Testimony Re Polyurethane Problem ML19347D7811981-03-24024 March 1981 Request for License Authorizing Operation Up to & Including 35% Rated Power.Fuel Loading,Initial Criticality & Zero Power Physics Testing to Be Completed by 810515.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19341D4501981-03-0202 March 1981 Response in Objection to ASLB 810217 Memorandum & Order Denying Admission of Contentions 5 & 6.Supplementary EIS on Class 9 Accident Is Necessary Predicate in Proceeding.Denial Should Be Certified to Commission.W/Certificate of Svc ML19350B7511981-02-26026 February 1981 Carolina Environ Study Group Application for Subpoenas Re Reopened McGuire Units 1 & 2 OL Proceeding.List of Proposed Witnesses & Questions Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003C1631981-02-17017 February 1981 Testimony Re Hydrogen Generation,Combustion & Containment Response,To Be Presented Re Contentions 1 & 2.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003C3391981-02-15015 February 1981 Summary of Proposed Testimony Re Contentions 3 & 4 on Adequacy of Emergency Evacuation Plan.Related Correspondence ML19339C9141981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Explaining Significant Events Leading to & Quantifying Amount of Hydrogen Produced During TMI-2 Accident.Accident Analysis & Prof Qualifications Encl ML19339C9261981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Describing Util Emergency Plans Re Actions to Be Taken W/Respect to Notification of Unusual Event,Alert,Site Area Emergency or General Emergency Conditions.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19339C9161981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Re Actions of Operator Assuming Improper Termination of ECCs During TMI-type Accident.Operators Trained in Revised Emergency Procedures to Diagnose & Evaluate Events.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19339C9251981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Delineating Analyses & Associated Physical Process Re Hydrogen Ignition & Burning.Facility,Drawings,Specs & Other Matl Examined & Analyzed.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19339C9221981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Re Methodology Used in Performing Analysis of Ultimate Capability of Facility Containment Vessel.Analysis of Finite Element Model Performed on One Quarter of Panel Bounded by Longitudinal & Meridional Stiffeners ML19339C9211981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Re Methodology Used in Performing Analysis of Ultimate Capability of Facility Containment Vessel to Withstand Pressures Similar to TMI-type Accident.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19339C9151981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Re Facility Measures Taken Subsequent to TMI Accident in Areas of Personnel,Equipment,Procedures & Training to Preclude Improper Operator Termination of Eccs.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19339C9201981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Re Purpose,Components & Operation of Distributed Ignition Hydrogen Mitigation Sys Installed at Facility.Sys Will Ignite Small Quantities of Hydrogen,Preventing Large Quantities from Burning.W/Prof Qualifications ML19339C9191981-02-0909 February 1981 Testimony Identifying & Describing Sys in Facility Containment Able to Mitigate Effects of Excessive Hydrogen Generation Resulting from TMI-type Accident.Prof Qualifications Encl 1999-09-20
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20004F4851981-06-16016 June 1981 Answer Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group 810606 Request to Stay ASLB 810419 & 0526 Decisions.Util Compliance W/Regulations Entitles ASLB to Find Facility Can Be Operated W/O Undue Risk to Public Health.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004F0131981-06-0808 June 1981 Exceptions to ASLB 810526 Supplemental Initial Decision & 790418 Initial Decision.Aslb Erred in Rejecting Jl Riley Evidence as Expert Witness & Decision That Riley Affidavit Not Responsive.Affidavit of Suc Encl ML20004D4231981-06-0505 June 1981 Request for Stay of Initial & Supplemental Initial Decisions.Aslb Lacks Basis for Finding Operation Would Not Expose Public to Undue Risk Since Board Did Not Determine Consequences of Shell Rupture.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20004D4161981-06-0505 June 1981 Request for Stay of Initial & Supplemental Initial Decisions.Commission Should Refer Decisions to ASLAP for Review.Potential for Irreparable Harm Due to Serve Hydrogen Explosion Is Great.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20004C8571981-06-0101 June 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810515 Motion to Permit Appeal of ASLB 810506 Order Denying Util Request for 35% Power Operations.Party May Not Appeal Favorable Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G9021981-04-17017 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810402 Motion Questioning Util 810324 Request for OL for 35% Power level.TMI-type Accident Is Not Credible.Proposed Order & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343D3451981-04-17017 April 1981 Response Opposing Applicant Request for Waiver,Exception or Exemption from 10CFR2,App B.No Special Circumstances Exist to Waive Procedures ML19347D9171981-04-0909 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810406 Request for Extension to File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Applicant Transcripts Available to Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350D2471981-04-0606 April 1981 Request for 10-day Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Counsel Occupied W/Other Cases. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343D1461981-04-0606 April 1981 Response Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group 810302 Request for Certification or Referral.Request Unnecessary Since Commission Has Specifically Addressed Issue. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9761981-04-0303 April 1981 Response Opposing Applicant 810327 Submittal of Jl Riley Affidavit & Affirmation of Svc.Filing Is Contrary to ASLB Ruling.Record Is Closed & Filing Is Not Responsive ML19347D9791981-04-0303 April 1981 Response to Jl Riley 810327 Affidavit Re Polyurethane Pyrolysis in Form of Encl Wh Rasin Affidavit ML19350D2501981-04-0202 April 1981 Reply Opposing Applicant 810324 Motion for License Authorizing Up to 35% Rated Power Operation.Alleged Need to Bolster Util Summer Reserve Is Result of Scheduling Oconee 1 Maint During Summer Peak.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347D7811981-03-24024 March 1981 Request for License Authorizing Operation Up to & Including 35% Rated Power.Fuel Loading,Initial Criticality & Zero Power Physics Testing to Be Completed by 810515.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19341D4501981-03-0202 March 1981 Response in Objection to ASLB 810217 Memorandum & Order Denying Admission of Contentions 5 & 6.Supplementary EIS on Class 9 Accident Is Necessary Predicate in Proceeding.Denial Should Be Certified to Commission.W/Certificate of Svc ML19350B7511981-02-26026 February 1981 Carolina Environ Study Group Application for Subpoenas Re Reopened McGuire Units 1 & 2 OL Proceeding.List of Proposed Witnesses & Questions Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003B3151981-02-0404 February 1981 Request for Reconsideration of Schedule.Carolina Environ Study Group Should Be Allowed to Submit Prefiled Testimony Seven Days After Receipt of NRC Complete Prefiled Testimony. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML19345E8431981-02-0202 February 1981 Response Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group Motion & Memorandum to Add Contentions.Question of Need to Suppl EIS Resolved.No Special Circumstances Exist to Include Charlotte,Nc in Emergency Plans ML20002E0871981-01-21021 January 1981 Memorandum Supporting Carolina Environ Study Group Motion to Add Contentions 5 & 6 Advanced in 801107 Reply to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20002E0531981-01-19019 January 1981 Response to Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners & City of Charlotte 801231 & 810113 Requests to Participate. Applicant Has No Objection.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340E5881981-01-0808 January 1981 Motion to Suppl 801107 Contentions 5 & 6 W/Memorandum of Law.No Objection to Extension for Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D2821980-12-15015 December 1980 Response to Carolina Environ Study Group Motion to Add Further Contentions.Carolina Environ Study Group Addl Contentions 5 & 6 Found Factually & Legally Flawed & Merit Denial.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345E0491980-12-0202 December 1980 Response in Opposition to M Fennel 800926 Request to Reopen Hearing If Viewed as Late Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339C3361980-11-12012 November 1980 Supplemental Filing Re Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Application for Fuel Loading & Low Power Testing.Calls Attention to Encl 801021 Fr Notice.Urges Expedited Consideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340C4801980-11-0707 November 1980 Response in Opposition to Applicant 800930 Motion for Summary Disposition Re Application for License Authorizing Fuel Loading.Moves for Consolidated Hearing Re Provisionary & Full Term Ols.Related Correspondence ML19340B7751980-11-0707 November 1980 Suppl to Statement of Matl Facts Re Absence of Issues to Be Heard.Hydrogen Generation Event During Worst Case May Be Terminated Prior to Onset of Core Damage.Notice of Mu Rothschild Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339B5581980-11-0303 November 1980 Comments on Commission 800926 Order Requesting Positions of Parties on Carolina Environ Study Group Revised Motion to Reopen Record.Affirms Prior View That CLI-80-16 Has No Direct Bearing on Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347B4111980-10-0909 October 1980 Response in Opposition to P Edmonston 801002 Request to Make Statement,If Viewed as Petition to Intervene.No Objection If Viewed as Request to Make Limited Appearance Statement If Hearing Held.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347B3641980-10-0808 October 1980 Response in Opposition to s Wilson 800930 Ltr,If Viewed as Late Petition to Intervene.No Objection to s Wilson Public Statement,If Hearing Reopened.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332B1231980-09-19019 September 1980 Submittal Updating Applicant 800903 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group Motion to Reopen OL Record Re Hydrogen Generation Control Issue Arising from TMI Accident.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331E0001980-09-0303 September 1980 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 800609 & 0815 Motions Requesting Reopening of Hearing Record.New Contentions Re Emergency Planning & Comparative Containment Design Are Impermissible Attack on Regulations ML19344D8671980-08-22022 August 1980 Response in Opposition to VB Dykes 800729 Ltr If Viewed as Late Petition to Intervene.Does Not Object to Request Re Appearance as Representative of Greenville League of Women Voters,If Hearing Reopened.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19327A3241980-08-0101 August 1980 Motion for Low Power OL Authorizing Fuel Loading,Initial Criticality,Zero Power Physics Testing & low-power Testing. Applicant Complied & Will Comply w/NUREG-0694,Pages 10-20. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19330C4291980-07-29029 July 1980 Petition for Hearing in Charlotte,Nc Re Containment Bldg. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329G1021980-07-0909 July 1980 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group Motions to Add New Contentions & to Reopen OL Hearing. Petitioner Failed to Comply W/New Evidence Criterion ML19318B3301980-06-24024 June 1980 Request for Extension Until 800707 to Respond to Carolina Environ Study Group 800609 Motions to Admit New Contentions & Reopen Record.Possibility of Stipulation Is Being Discussed W/Intervenor.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19326D6551980-06-0909 June 1980 Response in Opposition to Applicant 800520 Motion to Terminate Stay of ASLB 790418 Initial Decision.Suppl 3 to SER Indicates That NRC Review,Re TMI-related Requirements,Is Not Complete.Intervenor 800609 Ltr to Util Encl ML19326D6601980-06-0909 June 1980 Motion to Admit TMI-related New Contentions & to Reopen OL Hearing.Consequences of Significant Hydrogen Release in Westinghouse Containment,Were Not Subj of Adversary Proceedings.Contentions & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19323H0301980-05-30030 May 1980 Motion to Terminate Stay of ASLB 800418 Initial Decision Due to NRC 800523 Issuance of Suppl 3 to Ser.Requests Expeditious Issuance of full-term OL & Commencement of Initial Fuel Loading in Late Summer.W/Certificate of Svc ML15219A0471980-04-28028 April 1980 Statement of Board of Commissioners' Position in Opposition to Radwaste Transportation Through Gaston County,Nc.Urges Transportation Via Interstates 77 & 85.Encourages Expending Energy & Money for Recycling.W/Correspondence ML19241A9891979-05-17017 May 1979 State of Il Opposition to NRC 790504 & Comm Ed 790507 Motions for Reconsideration &/Or Clarification & Referral of ASLB 790419 Memo & Order Admitting Contentions 6 & 11 ML19282A6981979-01-28028 January 1979 Intervenor'S Petition to Reopen Safety Phases of Licensing Proceedings.Urges Review of Pressure Suppression Containments,Lack of Rod Sys Required by WASH-1270 & Possible Inadequacy of Stud Bolts ML20064E8161978-11-13013 November 1978 Applicant Dpc'S Reply to Intervenor Cesg'S Proposed Findings of Fact & Argument in Support of Consideration Submitted 781019.Asserts Inter Alla,That Proposed Findings Raise Impermissible Challenges to NRC Regs.Cert of Svc Encl ML20064D9101978-11-0101 November 1978 Applicant Dpc'S Request for Extension of Time to File Reply to Intervenor Cesg'S Proposed Findings of Fact.Dpc Asserts That Its Reply Req Input of Certain Persons Who Have Been Recently Unavailable.Cert of Svc Encl ML20064C4561978-09-28028 September 1978 Response to J Riley Affidavit Re Trends in Util Base Load. Util Contends That Affidavit Should Not Be Received by Board ML20064C0641978-09-25025 September 1978 Responses by Applicant to Motions by Intervenor to Reopen Environ Hearing to Add Contentions.Applicant Submits That Each Motion Should Be Denied ML19317E2621975-03-28028 March 1975 Settlement Agreement Between Applicant,Municipal Intervenors,Nc Electric Membership Corp & Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp ML19317E2431975-03-28028 March 1975 Joint Motion of Applicant & Municipal Intervenors to Accept Settlement & Terminate Proceeding.Settlement Agreement Dtd 750328, & Order on Joint Motion of AEC & DOJ to Place Conditions on Facility OLs Encl ML19317E2041974-05-24024 May 1974 Motion by Municipal Intervenors to Suspend Procedural Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19317E3591974-02-0707 February 1974 Joint Motion by DOJ on Behalf of Aec,Intervenors & Applicant Requesting Changes in Schedule of Proceeding Per ASLB Request.Certificate of Svc Encl 1981-06-08
[Table view] |
Text
.- _ . ._.
~
cw s
- '5N#
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION coff!
g ,
ye
. a ag)23 d <%
! Br2uns THE ATOMIC SAFT:TY'AND LICENSING BC '
.. * .**#~,
"o W g w a h5.-7b In the Matter of #"
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
) Docket Nos. 50-369 0-
) 50-370 ,
(William B. McGuire Nuclear )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVDTOR'S RENEWAL OF MOTION TO REOPEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING TO ADD CONTENTION (3)
On September 8, 1978 Intervenor filed its Renewal of Motion to Reopen Environmental Hearing to Add Contention (3) .
Intervenor's original Motion to Racpen Environmental Hearing to Add Contention (3) , dealing with the matter of long-ters l storage of nuclear wastes, was raised in its pleading of June 26, 1978. On August 14, 1978 this Board denied Inter-venor's Motion as an attack on the regulations and contrary to recent Appeal Board decisions on this point. Intervenor ,
has not presented any new or significant material which wculd bear on the Board's August 19, 1978 decision and accordingly, the instant Motion should be denied.
Intervenor requests that the matter be certified to the 1/
Ccmmissicn.- A request for certificatien requires the demon-
-1/ Intervenor makes reference to 10 CFR 52.785(d) as authority for the Board to certify matters to the Commission. Sec-ion 2.785 pertains to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. A parallel regulation, 10 CFR 52. 718 (i) , gives this Board the authority to certify.
Y MP2.-) Cy-
W
. - . - - + * -
\
'. t stration that " major or novel questions of policy, law or pro-cedure" are involved. See 10 CFR 52.785 (d) . Intervenor has failed th comply with this requirement. Regardless, as set forth in Applicant's July 11, 1978 response to Intervenor's pleading originally' raising this matter, the Commission has alrebdyannounceditspositiononthisissueandthus,certi-fication is unwarranted. Specifically, the Commission stated:
- [I] t is neither necessary nor reasonable for the Commission to insist on proof that a means of per-manent waste disposal is on hand at the Mme reactor operation begins, so long as the Commission can be reasonably ccnfident that permanent disposal. . .
can be acccmp.1.ished safely when it is likely to be-come necessary. Reasonable progress towards the de-velopment of permanent disposal- facilities is presently bc.ing acccmplished. Under these circum-stances a halt in licensing of nuclear power plants is not required to protect the public health and safety." 42 Fed. Reg. 34391 (1977).2/
In sum, the Motion should be denied.
, Respectfully submitted, 12 >
ll
- s. .
. .t.chael McGarry, III e' Of Counsel:
' William L. Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel I
Duke Power Ccmpany
' l - Sehtember 25, 1978 l ,
l ;
e l .
2_/ cn July'5, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affir=ed the Ccmmissicn's ap-
- preach. NRDC v. NRC, F. 2d , 11 ERC 1945 (2d
, Cir. 1978).
i
~ . _
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE JTOMIC SAFETY ANET LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-369
) 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear )
Station) )
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION-TO. REOPEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING TO ADD CONTENTION 04)
On September 8, 1978 Intervenor filed a Motion to Reopen Environmental Hearing to Add Contention (4). The subject of this motion is the alleged inadequacy of Applicant's emergency plan. Applicant maintains that such motion is untimely and should be denied. See Kansas Gas & Electric comeany, et al.
l (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (March 9, 1978) wherein it is stated:
"As is well settled, the proponent of a motion to reopen the record has a heavy burden. Duke Power Co.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-359, 4 NRC 619, 620 (1976). The motion must be both timely presented and addressed to a significant safety or environmental issue. Vermont Yankee Nu-clear Fower Coro. (Vermont Yankee Nticlear Power Sta-tion) ALAa-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (19 73) > id., ALAB-167, l 6 AEC 1131-52 (1973) r Georcia Power Co. TAlvin W.
' Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 409 (1975). Beyond that, it must be established that 'a different result would have been reached initially had (the material submitted in support of the motion] been considered.' Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1),
ALAB-227, 8 AEC 416, 418 (19 74) . "
- - - ,,-n-
Intervenor raised the matter of the alleged inade-quacy of Applicant's emergency plans in its original July i 15, 1974 Petition to Intervene. Subsequently, a stipula-tion of contentions was entered into by tne parties. See l Stipulation of June 30, 1975 which was approved by this Board in its Memorandum and Order of December 25, 1975.
The stipulation stated that "any contentionswhich may have been previously asserted by CESG and which do not appear in this stipulation are abandoned and withdrawn." The I
stipulation does not contain the emergency plans conten-tion. Accordingly, Applicant maintains that se:h con-tantion has been abandoned and withdrawn and that Intervenor's instant motion to reintroduce it is inappropriate.
On February 6, 1976 Applicant filed its Proposed Emer-gency Plan. Such has been in the local public document room since that time. It is to be noted that Intervenor Orally requested a copy of Applicant's Emergency Plan. Applicant J furnished Intervenor a copy over a year ago.
A on March 8, 1978, the Staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report. See Staff Exhibit B admitted at Tr. 1975. A dis-cussion of emergency plans is set forth in SER Section 13.3.
On the basis of the above, Applicant maintains that In-tervenor has long been on notice of Applicant's Emergency Plan and Staff review thereof and that the filing of this motion at this late date is clearly untimely.
l l
For the above stated reasons, Applicant submits that the instant motion should be denied. -
Respectfully submitted
/L)ux> Al ~
J. Michael McGarry 2:II Of Counsel William L. Porter, Esq.
Associata. General Counsel Duke Power Ccmpany September 25, 1978 o
I t
r l
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
i )
DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-369 <
) 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear )
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) -
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION *O REOPEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING TO ADD CONTENTION (5)
On September 8, 1978 Intervenor filed a Motion to Reopen Environmental Hearing to Add Contention (5) . Therein Inter-venor alleged that the ice condenser containment system en-1/
played at McGuire "may be vulnerable to bypass leakage."-
Intervenor contends that the system "has been insufficiently tested" and that until " full scale testing is carried out,"
McGuire "should not be put into operation". In support of its position, Intervenor made reference to 1972 correspondence t
/ of members of.the NRC Staff. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.730 (c)
Applicant makes the following response.
The legal requirements pertaining to reopening were re-cently addressed by the Appeal Board. See Kansas Gas &
i Electric Ccmpany, et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No . 1) , ALAB-4 62, 7 NRC 320, 338 (March 9,1978) wherein it is stated:
1/ Consideration of the ice condenser containment is a radio-
~
logical health and safety matter and accordingly, Inter-venor's request to reopen the environmental hearing is mis-placed.
"As is well settled, the proponent of a motion to reopen the record has a heavy burden. Duke Power Co. l (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-359, l 4 NRC 619, 620 (1976). The motion must be both l
- timely presented and addressed to a significant safety or environmental issue. Vermont Yankee Nu-clear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Sta-tion) ALAS-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973); id., ALAB-167, 6 AEC 1151-52 (1973) ; Georgia Power Co.' TAlvin w.
Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 409 (1975). Beyond that, it must be established that 'a different result would have been reached initially had (the material submitted in support of the motion] been considered.' Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1) ,
ALAB-227, 8 AEC 416, 418 (19 74) . "
Applicant submits that, pursuant to the above-referenced case law, the instant motion is untimely and fails to establish that' a different result would be reached from that already in the record if the contention were granted.
Applicant maintains that the subject 1972 correspondence consists of no more than internal Staff memoranda. The Staff's independent, internal reviews naturally consist of many inputs and varying opinions; however, these varying opinions are not j to be read as final Staff positions. Rather, the Staff posi-tion both prior and subsequent to the date of the subject cor-respondence has continued to be one of approval of licensing of both ice condenser containments and General Electric pres-sure suppression containments referenced in the subject cor-respondence. With respect to the ice condenser containments, two units (D. C. Cook) have received operating licenses and 1 others (McGuire, Catawba, Sequoyah and Watts Bar) have re-l l ceived construction permits; with respect to the GI pressure suppression containment, numerous facilities have received
3-licenses (i.e. , operating licenses were issued in Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3, and Brunswick, and construction permits were i issued in Zimmer, LaSalle County, Bailly and Hatch) .
Regardless of the above, this subect correspondence does not serve as a basis for the instant proposed contention. In his July 14, 1978 letter to Senator Clifford P. Case on this precise matter, Dr. Hendrie stated.
"With regard to the specific points in your letter, I would note that Dr. Hanauer'i. 1972 men)randum was directed not to any conclusion that pressure
( suppression containments were unsafe, but rather that the increased complexity of the concept, com-pared to ' dry' containments, made the staff review one that was correspondingly more complex and that required more time and effort to rescive the tech-nical issues involved. He suggested a study of the overall cost effectiveness of the concept, to include both staff and applicant resource require-ments, to see if his opinion that the concept might not be worth the effort from a cost standpoint was correct. I note Dr. Hanauer's comments in his June 20, 1978, memorandum (enclosed with my June 21st letter to Senator Hart):
'My current opinion is that designs in-cluding pressure suppression containments O can be 11oensed, because we have adesuate assurance of their safety. This was also my opinion in 1972.
'My point in 1972 was that the problems involved in such design 2 seemed, on bal-ance, not worth the extra resources that were likely to be requred to resolve them.
I hope to elicit a study of costs and benefits in sufficient depth to establish whether my intuition was correct....'
"It was, as Dr. Hanauer put it, 'an idea to kick around' and not one that required any denial of valid-ity or rebuttal of its findings and recommendaticns.
My own feeling then, and I believe it was shared by the staff in general, was that the regulatory staff should not be in the business of deciding what was 1
-4 economical for applicants. I felt the pressure suppression concept was an acceptable one from a safety standpoint, and did not think the more com-
, plex staff review task posed by the concept was a basis for rejecting it. I still feel that way."
Continuing, Dr. Hendrie stated:
"The safety-related design aspects of pressure sup-pression containments proposed by applicants have been carefully reviewed by the staff and have been discussed in staff reports on individual projects using the concept for nearly 20 years. As operat-ing experience has accumulated, and as further test and safety research work has been done, several problems in the detailed designs of these systems have been identified. In each case, the staff has l reviewed the pertinent design features of the af-
- facted operating plants and has required changes in operating procedures and equipment modifications to maintain adequate safety margins. For new plants, design changes have been required as necessary.
These matters are detailed in the enclosures and in the technical update document I will send you.
I should add that in my view none of these problems affectsof point, thethe basic acceptability, pressure suppression from a safet{/_
concept." stand-So postured, the alleged basis for excusing the untimely j filing of this contention and the alleged basis of the sub- i i
stance of the contention have been shown to be lacking. Thus, (a this motion.should be denied.
So as to remove any question as to the substance of the proposed question, Applicant submits that such as been raised previously and thus, should not be further considered by this Board. At the construction permit stage, Intervenor con:: ended that the analyses made and the testing conducted with respect to the ice condenser containment were not adequate to demon-strate the performance and reliability of that system. Ihe 1/ With reference to Dr. Hendrie's ccmmitment to provide fur-ther technical update, see Dr. Hendrie's August 2, 1973 letter to Senator Case, transmitting E' RIG-0474.
v v -r-- e - - - -- --
-s-record reflects that this matter was the . .bject of over 400 pages of hearing transcript at the construction permit evi-
- dentiary hearing. Both the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board held that there was no substance to Intervenor's contention. See LBP-73-7, 6 AEC 92, 101-104 (1973), and ALAB-128, 6 AEC 399, 406-407 (1973). More recently, Intervenor voiced its concern with the ice condenser system on the docket of McGuire's sister plant, Catawba. 'During the evidentiary hearings held on the Catawba case, Intervenor withdrew its ice condenser conten-tion indicating that whatever apprehensions it had had with respect to the ice condenser had been resolved. See Catawba Transcript 2709-12. Despite its withdrawal, the Catawba Licensing Board censidered the ice condenser contention inde-pendently and concluded that the Staff's review had been adequate. See 1 NRC 626, 642 (1975). Applicant contends that such facrs clearly demonstrate Intervenor's familiarity with this matter and thereby underscores the untimeliness of the instant motion. Further, Applicant submits that the above reference rulings of the various Boards should be dispositive of any additional consideratien of this matter pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral esteppel, With regard to the instant preceeding, Intervenor raised the matter of the alleged inadequacy of the ice condenser con-tainment in its original July 15, 1974 Petition to Intervene.
Subsequently, a stipulation of cententions was entered into
by the parties. See Stipulation of June 30, 1975 which was approved by this Board in its Memorandum and order of December 25, 1975. The stipulation stated that "any contentions which may have been previously asserted by CESG and which do not appear in this stipulation are abandoned and withdrawn". The stipulation does not contain an ice condenser contention. Ac-cordingly, Applicant maintains that such contention has been abandoned and withdrawn and that Intervenor's instant motion to reintroduce it is inappropriate.
On March 8, 1978, the Staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report. See Staff FvMhit 3 admitted at Tr.1975. An exten-sive discussion approving the ice condenser containment is set forth in SER Section 6.2. The Staff found that the per-formance of the ice condenser containment had been demon-strated by both extensive analyses and experimental programs.
On April 12, 1978 the Advisory Ccmmittee on Reactor Safe-guards (ACRS) issued a favorable report, making specific ref-t erence to the ice condenser containmenu. See Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement 1, Section 18, Staff Exhibit C, admitted at Tr. 1979.
In sum, Applicant maintains that Intervenor is seeking to raise again a matter it has long been familiar with. The record has been closed and thus, Intervenor is under a hea'ef burden to demonstrate that further censideration of this matrer is warranted. See Catawba, supra. Intervenor attempts to meet this burden by relying upon the above-referenced corres-
pondence. Applicant maintains that such is not sufficient to meet Intervenor's burden and thus the motion should be denied.
4
. Respectfully submitted, o., f'
. Michael McGarry, III Of Counsel:
William L. Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Ccmpany September 25, 1978 v-l t
i l
i
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _
In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER CCMPANY -) Docket Nos. 50-369
) 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Response to Intervenor's Renewal of Motion to Reopen Environmental 7
Hearing to Add Contention (3) ", " Applicant's Response to In-t tervenor's Motion to Reopen Environmental Hearing to Add Contention (4)", and " Applicant's Response to Intervenor's Motion to Reopen Environmental Hearing to Add Contention (5)",
dated September 25,.1978 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 25th day of September.
Robert M. Lazo, Esq. Nr. Jesse L. Riley Chairman, Atomic Safety President and Licensing Board Carolina Environmental U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Study Group Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D. C. 20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
(
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Regulatory Board Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Director Bodega Marine Laboratory William L. Porter, Esq.
of California Associate General Counsel Post Office Box 247 Duke Power Company Bodega Bay, California 94923 Post Office Box 2178 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Shelley Blum, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 418 Law Building Docketing & Service Section 730 East Trade Street Office of the Secretary Charlotte, North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 28202 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boaru U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C. 20555 I
V g.nehaelaccarryfIzz
(
l l
l V
i