Similar Documents at Perry |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions ML20205D4901999-02-22022 February 1999 Transcript of 990222 Informal Public Hearing on 10CFR2.206 Petition in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-105.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20155F4561998-08-26026 August 1998 Demand for Info Re False Info Allegedly Provided by Wh Clark to Two NRC Licensees.Nrc Considering Whether Individual Should Be Prohibited from Working in NRC-licensed Activities for Period of 5 Yrs ML20236V5261998-07-20020 July 1998 Computer Access & Operating Agreement Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal1998-05-21021 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal ML20216B5111998-04-0909 April 1998 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty.Denies Request for Remission of Violation C,Ea 97-430 & Orders Licensee to Pay Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 within Next 30 Days PY-CEI-NRR-2269, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective ML20216G3821998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Duquesne Light Co & Allegheny Power Systems,Inc ML20217J0661998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Dqe, Inc & Allegheny Power System,Inc ML20198P9311997-11-0707 November 1997 Comments of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc.NRC Should Require Allegheny Power Sys,Inc to Affirm That Capco Antitrust License Conditions Will Be Followed ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20133B6941996-12-18018 December 1996 Submits Ordinance 850-96 Re Approval of Merger of Centerior & Oh Edison Into Firstenergy ML20135F4731996-12-0606 December 1996 Memorandum & Order CLI-96-13.* Commission Reverses & Vacates ASLB LBP-95-17 Which Granted Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Ocre & Hiatt.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961206 ML20132A8461996-12-0202 December 1996 Resolution 20-1996 Supporting Merger of Ohio Edison & Centerior Corp Under New Holding Company Called Firstenergy ML20134M6191996-10-28028 October 1996 Proclamation of Support by City of Sandusky,Oh Re Merger of Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corp ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20108B7571996-04-26026 April 1996 Licensee Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* Recommends That Commission Reverse Board Memorandum & Order Issued 951004.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List PY-CEI-NRR-2034, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl1996-03-11011 March 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20097B8911996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement or in Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures ML20096E2471996-01-0303 January 1996 Comment on PRM 50-64 Re Stockpiling Ki for Use as Thyroid Protectant in Event of Nuclear Accident.Supports Distribution of Ki to Public ML20094N1951995-11-17017 November 1995 Oh Edison Application for License Transfer in Connection W/ Sale & Related Transactions ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6341994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20064N9201994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition. W/Svc List ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1421993-10-19019 October 1993 Order.* Petitioners Shall File Supplemental Petition in Accordance W/Schedule in 931018 Order.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931020 ML20059B1761993-10-18018 October 1993 Order.* Informs That for Each Contention,Petitioners Shall Comply Fully W/Requirements of 10CFR2.714(b)(2)(i),(ii) & (III) & Their Filing Should Address Requirements Set Forth in Regulations.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20058M8761993-09-30030 September 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-21.* Appeal for Hearing Re Amend to Plant OL Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930930 ML20057C0461993-09-21021 September 1993 Supplemental Director'S Decision DD-93-15 Involving 920929 Request for Certain Actions to Be Taken Re Proposed Construction of Interim onsite,low-level Radioactive Waste Facility at Plant.Request Denied ML20056C8951993-07-19019 July 1993 Order Extending Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of LBP-92-32.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 930720 ML20045B5661993-06-0707 June 1993 Comment Re Proposed Generic Communication on Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans,As Published in Fr on 930401 (58FR17293).Believes Concept of Technical Review Not Addressed by STS ML20044E2781993-05-13013 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercise from Annual to Biennial ML20127A6171993-01-0606 January 1993 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of Board Order LBP-92-32,dtd 921118,extended Until 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930106 ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D4761992-12-22022 December 1992 Alabama Electric Cooperative Answer to Applicants Petitions for Review.* Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5871992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review ASLB 921118 decision,LBP-92-32.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underplanning of Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A5751992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review LBP-92-32, 921118 Board Decision in Proceeding.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underpinning of Statute.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A7651992-11-18018 November 1992 Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* City of Cleveland Petition for Review Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4671992-11-16016 November 1992 Licensee Response to Lake County Commissioners 10CFR2.206 Petition.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116E7941992-09-29029 September 1992 Petition for Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Const of Low Level Radwaste at Perry Plant.* Requests Public Hearing Be Held Prior to Const of Storage Site & Const Should Be Suspended Until NRC or Util Produces EIS on Risks ML20101N5131992-07-0808 July 1992 City of Cleveland Opposition to Applicant Request That Licensing Board Disregard Certain Arguments of City of Cleveland Counsel in Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20101N6401992-07-0707 July 1992 Reply by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Applicant Request That Board Disregard Factual Issues.* Applicant Requests Board Disregard Irrelevant Assertions by All Parties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101K2101992-06-29029 June 1992 Applicants Request That Licensing Board Disregard Factual Issues Discussed During Oral Argument.* Foregoing Issues Represent Factual Issues Which Board Should Disregard in Disposition of Phase One of Case.W/Certificate of Svc ML20098D5181992-05-26026 May 1992 Reply of City of Cleveland,Oh to Arguments of Applicants & NRC Staff W/Respect to Issues of Law of Case,Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel & Laches.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090F4261992-03-31031 March 1992 Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor,City of Cleveland,Oh & Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* City of Cleveland,Oh & Applicant Motions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094K3791992-03-18018 March 1992 Applicants Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule.* Applicants Request That Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J2891992-03-0909 March 1992 Response of DOJ to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges ASLB to Resolve Bedrock Legal Issue in Negative & Concludes That Commission Possess Legal Authority to Retain License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091N1241992-01-24024 January 1992 Applicants Answer to Cleveland Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Applicants Have No Objection to Request for Opportunity to Submit Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087E7821992-01-16016 January 1992 Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Cleveland Requests That Motion Be Granted & 911114 Order Establishing Schedule for Motions for Summary Disposition Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086U5371992-01-0606 January 1992 Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Board Grant Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Due to Lack of NRC Authority to Retain Antitrust License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J4821991-12-31031 December 1991 Reply Brief of City of Cleveland,Oh in Support of Notice of Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order Granting Request for Hearing.* Appeal Should Be Granted,Ref to Board Revoked & Applications Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9231991-12-27027 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply & Reply to Applicants Answer to City Motion for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3001991-12-24024 December 1991 Applicant Answer to Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision. * W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H7161991-12-19019 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N4601991-12-17017 December 1991 Licensees Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc & SL Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Determines That Intervenor Failed to Demonstrate Interest in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086J4741991-12-0909 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply Brief.* Motion to File Reply Should Be Granted for Listed Reasons ML20086G4001991-11-26026 November 1991 Ohio Edison Co Motion for Reconsideration.* Util Respectfully Requests That NRC Vacate CLI-91-15 & Direct Forthwith Answer to Licensee Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079Q0301991-11-0606 November 1991 Oec Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories.* Util Moves Board to Compel NRC to Respond Completely,Explicitly & Properly to Licensee Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B5841991-09-0606 September 1991 Licensee Answer to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Has Shown No Interest in Proceeding.W/Notice of Appearance,Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20076D1611991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc (AMP-Ohio) for Leave to Intervene.* Util Does Not Object to Admission of AMP-Ohio as Intervenor on Basis of Status as Beneficiary.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0481991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric & Toledo Edison to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio for Leave to Intervene.* Utils Believe That 910703 Petition Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081K8961991-06-20020 June 1991 Alabama Electric Cooperative Reply to Oppositions Filed to Petition to Intervene.* Informs of Util Intention to Assure Vindication of Proper Legal Principle.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2391991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio,To Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene.* ML20079D2211991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland, Oh to Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2161991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* AEC Has Not Met Burden of Satisfying Regulatory & Common Law Requirements.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-09
[Table view] |
Text
e June 1, 1982 UNITED STATES OF A.?.: ERICA -3 NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CGMMISSIbN c: . ett
, . .E c Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) 82 jus-3 R2:23, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING 5
) Docket Nos. 50 440 .
Yf COMPANY, Et A1. )
) (Operating fc50-441 License),h -
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
)
OCdE REPLY TO STAFF AND APPLICANT RESPONSES TO. MOTION. TO
~
FILE CONTENTIONS 17, 18, AND 19 Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Procedural Order of nugust 4, 1981, OChE hereby files this reply to the responses of Staff and npplicant to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Leave to File its Contentions 17, 18, and 19 dated i
April 22, 1982. Both Staff and applicant advanced various arguments opposing the admission of the contentions; OCRE addrcsses below the reasons why these arguments do not bar the admission of the threc contentions.
1 -
J Contention 17: Substratum Placement of Water Intake S.ructure l
l The Staff contends that there must be a "significant difference" in environmental impact before altcrnatives can be considered under NEPA, and sincc the fish entrainment/im-t pingement losses are considered " minimal and insignificant" i
in the DES for Perry, NUREG-0884, the NEPA evaluation of alter-native intake structures is not required. The Applicant even goes so far as to allege tnat CCRE agrees with this conclusion of the DES. Although CCnE decs not disagree with the numbers pre-k O j D
sented~in Table 5.2 of tne DES, OCEE does not agree that these P .
entrainment/ impingement losses arc insignificant, or that the
, radial well type of intake design would result in no significant differenco.
The PHPP entrainment/ impingement losses are projected to be several orders of magnitude lower than such losses presently incurred at other power plants on Lake Erie (DES at p.'5-11).
However, the impact of the radial well design (zero entrainnent/
. ngement losses) would be several orders of magnitude less than this. OChE is at a loss as to why a reduction in annual fish impingement from 10 7 to 104 is considered a significant 4
differcnce (favoring.the closed-cycle cooling system over-once-through cooling), yet a reduction from-10 4 ~to zero is considered insignificant.
Both Staff and Applicant argumsnts obfuscate the fact that this is a simple NEPis issue; when a clearly superior alternative l to a proposed action exists, NEPA requires that it be considered (42 USC 4332, 10 CFR 51.23(f), and 10 CFR 51.52(c)). -
Although FSAR data do indicate that the stratigraphy of the PHPP site may bc less suitcble to the enplcyment of the radihl well dcsign than is the Ornnd Gulf sito, perhaps some dcsign'
- s. _1_/
- changes could correct this problem. The burden of proof is
_1/ OCnE feels that the.. Applicant's use of the'5 gpm figure to l allege that 14,000 wells would be needed is inappropriate; the
! 5 gpm value corresponds to shallow residentihl wells (DES Section 4.3.5). Such wells should obviously not be coapared to a highly engincered structure.
e
+-+ m-f~sg y ng %*w e,m.- m-.gr-r-,p .7 ,e. , - ,qr -p.>y1, --,-9,,,ya.,y,r., ry,--wgm. ge v- m e e + -T M 7 werw+r--e-- 't w e er mi ew-m-'7-*m *--rte %> MM-- ee-=-rw --
+e-r-P=-me
i on the npplicant to show that the implementation of the Grand e
Gulf intake design (or some modification thereof) is totally impcssible for the Ferry site (10 CFR 2.732).
, Staff and Applicant further suggest that NRC consideration of alternative intake designs may be p[recluded E by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( Pl.'P CA ) . OChE would note'that this suggestion is indeed speculative, and that the section of Fi/PCA cited, 33 USC 1371(c)(2), refers to the discharEc of effluents, not the impacts of water intake structures. Further-more, if OCHE were to take the Staff's advice and await the issuance of future FWPCA certification) or permits, OCRE predicts that it would then be chided'for failure to file at an earlier date (e.g., at the issuance of the DES).
OCRE maintains that this contention is not untimely.- This Intervenor has only recently learned of thi. superior intake -
design. Applicant's claim that the Federal Recister notice of puolication of the Grund Gulf DES provided " constructive notice" of the Grcnd Gulf intake design in June 1981 'is misleading. The i- Federal Renister no'tice may have givcn notice of the availability of the DES; but, since the notice did not divulge in detail the specific contents of the DES, it cannot be construed that notice was given of the specific intake design. OCRE's serendipitous i
discovery of the radinl well design in the Grand Gulf PLS should i
_2/ Staff's speculation is contingent upcn possible limitations imposed oy futurc OEPA certifications.
++e -*ra ,e .,, _ gy -. .,rw -- w -4--- ?e----Y--w Y-
- thus constitute good cause for filing at this time.
r, as far as Applicant's other argements regarding the past availability of information on this intake system desiE n and the suggested availcbility of other means by which to protect its interests, OCRE believes that it is fundamentally unjust to expect an all-volunteer public interest group with limited financial resources to be intimately familiar with every esotcric document ever published and to participate in various other proceedings, the only result of which would be to dilute OCRE's effectiveness in this proceeding.
The law (NLPA) requires that alternatives to a proposal be considered. The Applicant has not done this. OCRE contends that this alternative must be evaluated before PNPP .an be licensed.
Contention 18: Use of Commercial Spent Fuel for duelear Weapons Both Staff and Applicant argue that this contention should be rejected oecause the use of nuclear waste for nuclear weapons is not a currently active proposal. Applicant also believes that tne recent pas' sage of the Hart Amendment to the NRC author-ization bill by the Senate will effectively prevent any such usage.
OCRE would note that this plcn was proposed for a short time by Kenneth Davis of the Department of Energy (128-Cong. Rec. S2961).
The proposal was apparently withdrawn because, according to Senator Mart, the DOE did not intend to spend money this year to obtain commercial spent reactor fuel for weapons'use (128 Cone.
Rec. S2959, emphasis added) .
OChE also notes that the Departments of Lorense and Energy both oppose the Hart Amendment because it would forclose the
4 i . -
. option of using spent. fuel for military purposes (sce D0D and-DOE letters in 128 Conc. Eec. S2960-61). Many senators were careful to point out .that the amendment would nor forclose this option, since the law could always be changed if circumstances (e.g. , a plutonium shortage) made this desirable . Indeed, much of the debate is support of tne amendment cited the deleterious effect the plan would have on ~ the public image of the nuclear
- industry, rather than concerns over nuclcar proliferation and war. Thus, one can certainly suspect that this amendment, the
- Senate passage of which was apparently predicated on the fear of puolic opinion, could be easily rescinded should the winds of 1 public sentiment blow in another direction.
It should also oe rcmembered that the Hart Amendment is not yet law; it must be approved by the liouse, whereupon it must cross the President's desk. Therein lies the obstacle. OChE concurs with the statement made by former Commissioner Eradford in a recent speech: "any crew 'that would forge ahead with a billion
! tax dollars for Clinch River while flirting with the riotion of 4
l proclaiming ketchup to be a nourishing vegetable in school lunches
{ is not a force to be underestimated" (see NUREG/BR-0032-(NhC News Releases), Vol. 2, No. 11, at p. 5).
i The Congressional Record also controverts Applicant's suggestica that the technoloCy required to affect this proposal may not be available. Senator Percy remarked that laser isotope separation tcchnology could be ready by 1987 to refine plutonium in wastes frcm the Hanford reactor (p. 32978). This application is essentially the same as that rcquired for the use of commercial spent fuel. Senator Tower, in his opposition to the amendment, O . .- ._ _ , _ - _ _ , .
- _ - _ _ - . _ ~ _ - - - _. _ --
6-indicated that tne use of spent fuel, made. feasible by laser isotope separation-technology, m1 6ht be more cost-effective than building new production reactors (p. S2979).
The applicant errs'in its analysis of "0ChE's underlying assumption . . . that if spent fuel from commercial power plants is not availaole for this nation's nuclear weapons program, there will be insufficient plutonium to arm this nation's nuclear weapons" (Applicant's Answer at-11-12). This is not OCRE's
" fantastical argument." It is the Applicant's argument, as is ,
best evidenced bf the statement in Attachment 2 to OCRE's motion.
That the Reagan administration also foresees a plutonium shortaEe is demonstrated by the fact that the administration approached Great Britian with an offer to purchase British plutonium, sup-posedly for the Clinch hiver Breeder Reactor (see "
Plutonium for Sale" by r/ alter C. Patterson, The Bulletin of the-Atomic Scientists, May 1982, pp. 55-56). .
Thus, OCHE maintains its conclusion that the use of commer-cial spent fuel for nuclecr weapons, far.from being remote and
, speculative, may well be a reality in the near future. -Consequently,-
- this -is an effect of PNPP operation which must be considered under
! NEPA. OCHE fears that if this NEPA evaluation were deferred until i
j such a proposal becomes publicly unveiled, it may face a formidable i
i obstacle in seeking the readmission of the issue. E.g., if the
_3/ Curiously, others in the nuclear industry do not share the Applicant's entnusiasm for tnis plan. Some have referred to it as a-public relations dicastcr.
i m
v v 9- g w+,,-p- gww.q-v isy gywr v---yevy wg yy- ev.? Ta 1M"* M 't T-M=-+7--49#TF'+*--M--T-T- t-~^*t'""* e ***~ F' W
l record had to reopencd, this Intervenor would face a significantly
?
higner legal burden (Kansas - Gas and Electric ard Kansas City Power
- and Light (flolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7
' NRC 320, 338 (1978); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC 775, 804 (1979)).
The Applicant rightly concludes that such a NEPA analysis "would require the Licensing Board to assess ooth the increased risk and total environmental cost of a nuclear war" (Applicantos-Answer at 11,-footnote 7). However, Applicant's claim that this analysis would be impossible because of classified information I is best contradicted by the success of the public educational j programs conducted by groups such as Physicians for Social
- Responsibility. Using unclassified information, these groups
' have vividly demonstrated the horrific consequences of nuclear war und have convinced many that the risk of nuclear war is too 1
Great to be accepted. OCRE thus sucgests that the unclassified information now available is sufficient to support such an analysis, i and that this analysis must be performed before Perry.can be I
' li c e ns e d._.4_/ '
j Contention 19: Polymer Degradation from Hadistion Exposure Both Staff and Applicant attack OCREr s filing as untimely, claiming tnat the information cited in the Science News article i
l
_4/ Applicant's claim that consideration of this issue is ~
precluded by 10 CFR 60.13 is erroneous. 10 CFR 50.13, which.
exempts nuclear facilities from having to withstand the - effects i of an attack, is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Contention 10 does not deal with facility design.
L t
l
., . -e-was availacle in Ju.ne 1981. That article constituted OCHE's
?
first nctice of that information. Science !!cws is a credible publication which is perused wita diligence by OCEE; upon discovering that article, OCRE assumed that the information was indeed recent.
OCHE does not believe tnat the documents cited by A.pplicant (or the June 1981 Sandia reports) can be considered "information widely availa~ ole previously." Ochi would repeat here its concerns regarding the injustice of expecting a public interest group with limited resources to be familiar with esoteric documents.
If any groups are familiar with ty.ese documents, they would be the nuclear industry and the HhC. Yet they have consistently ignored the problem of dose rate effects on radiation-induced polymer degradation. For example, the language concerning realistic dose rates in the proposed rule on Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment for duclear Power Plants (47 FR 2076) was deleted in the final rule, apparently under pressure frcm the industry (see Memorandum for haymond P. Fraley, Executive Director
_5/
ACHS, from dobert B; Ilinogue, Director ONRR, dated April 16, 1982).
OCHE thus considers site-specific litigation to be the only means by wnich to effectively address this problem.
OCaE also fcels that the Perry plant snould merit special attention in this regard, since it ic the prototype 236 sice
_5/ OCnE cites thi s as a prime example of the ineffectiveness of citizen and puolic interest group participation in the !!RC rulemaking process.
l
g_
fJin/6 (FSuh Se ction 1.5.1.1) una therefore might have a radiation environment quite different frca those plants precedir.g it, applicant's arbument that "many commercial reactors have already operated for long pcriods of time" (iipplicant's Answer at 20) ignores the fact tnat these early reactors are small and of different design. In fact the example cited by itpplicant, Yankee howe, is a PWh. Comparison with these plants is obviously inappropriate. OChE maintains that Contention 19 is timely and snould be admitted.
Respectfully submitted, m$$
Susan L. Hiatt OClil. Interim itepresentative 8276 I:!unson lid.
Itentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3153 l
l l
i l
f I
l t
CliJ2IFICATE OF SEh71CE .
7 , . . -
t mhis is to certifv that copies.cf the foregcing OC..L REPLY
~
TO ~embF"7 AIID r.PPLIC4.UT nLS?OUSES TO MCTIO:i TO FILE CC:!TLUTIOliS 17 1h, AND 19 werc served oy deposit in the U.S. Ma11, . firstl2,24 class, postage prepaid, this 1st day of June, 1982 to those c tne Service List bclow. 9/
- 1. - . .
w Susan L. diatt 1
~ SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7301 Chippewa Rd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commin Brecksville, OH Washington, D.C. 20555 44141 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S . Nu clear R egula tory Comm ' n -
i Washington, D. C. 20555 James Thessin, Esq.
t Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Wasnington, D.C. 20555 l
Jay Silberg, Esq.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 f
l
' Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washi:gton, D.C. 20555 i
I w