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
___
s ,
$ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t :"r-r-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the matter of Docket Nos,, 50-4'f 0;2 Cleveland Electric illuminating Company et. al. 'C2. U. ; ; 50-441 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2) (Operating License)
Sunflower All_ lance _I nc. . _et. al. _
Moti_on to _ Appl _icant _to _ Compel Di_scovery 1 Sunflower Alliance Inc. et. al., one of the intervenors in the matter, moves the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board for its order compelling the applicant herein to answer and respond to the First Set of interrogatories filed herein. R 2 A brief is attached in support of this motion.
Respectfully submitted, I {p Daniel D. Wilt Attorney for Sunflower Alliance, Inc.
7301 Chippewa Rd.
Brecksville, Ohio 44141 i (216) 526-2350 I
Proof of Servi _ce The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the herein Motion toCompelhasbeensenttoalipersonsontheServiceListonthis _
_ day of <MI//- ., 1982.
\
~
B2 aniel D. Wilt B2 6 050g {ph ttorney for Sunflower Alliance, Inc.
a 950J
- BRIEF
- 1. On or about December 2, 1981, Sunflower Alliance Inc., et. al. filed its first set of interrogatories specifically directed to the Applicant. Three separate telephone discussions between counsel for Sunflower and counsel for Appilcant were conducted in order to resolve (or try to resolve) certain issues dealing with discovery. On or about February 5,1982, Applicant filed its first set of responses. On March 24, 1982, a letter was sent to Counsel for Applicant requesting Counsel to reconsider the numerous objections and non-responsive answers that were filed. On March 25, !!bi, another telephone conference was held to resolve the dispute. For the most part, counsel have been unable to resolve the disputes and this Motion becomes necessary. Intervenor believes that every effort has been made to comply with this Board's July 28, 1981 order of discovery,
- 2. The essential question is how broad is the discovery mechanism provided for under the Commission's Rules of Practice. 10 CFR 2.740. The key element limiting discovery is the term " relevant". Generally, a party may seek discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding. Further, the ruled provide:
...it is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) '/
- 3. The Appeal Boards have had several opportunities to discuss the discovery rules in reported decisions. One of the Just cases is on the_ Matter of_ Northern States Power _ Company _(Monticello_ Nuclear Generating Plant, Un i_t 1), 4 A.E.C. 390 (1970). Here the Appeal Board issued several general comments on discovery:
...These discovery provisions, if used in good faith by parties, are designed to make affirmative contributions to contested administrative proceedings. One of the areas of discovery is to particularize the areas of controversy and, within those areas, to focus upon the issues and contentions which must be resolved in the determination of the case. Another purpose served by discovery is to bring about the disclosure of properly producible relevant information and material....
l_ Bio, pg. 392.
4 Another decision discussing the discovery rules is in the Matter of Commonweal th Edis_on Co. (Z_i_on Station. Units _14_2)_, 7 AEC 457 (1974) . Here the Appeal Board commented as follows:
...The applicable Commission discovery rules are strikingly parallel to the analogous provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...
The Supreme Court long ago made it clear that the deposition - discovery portions of the Federal Rules 'are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatir.ent and that civil trials in the federal courts' no longer need be carried on in the dark.' Rather, '(m)utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.
- s o that end, either party may compel _t_he other _to discorce whatever facts he has_in hi_s possession... (m)odern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose... Thee together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blind mN bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts _di_scl_osed to _the fullest practicabl_e extent.._,
(emphasis added) 1810,,8 pgs 460-1 The Appeal Board concluded in the ZI_on_Sta_ti_on case:
...But despite this discretion and latitude, we think that the ' broad',
liberal Interpretation' given to the Federal Rules must similarly be accorded the Comission's discovery rules. 183 , pg 461.
Sunflower concludes, therefore, that discovery should be construed by this Board broadly as this Board apparently intended in its order dated March 3,1982.
- 5. The issue of relevance raises its ugly head because this is Applicant's essential reason for not answering Sunflower's interrogatories. The question of a definition of relevant has also been discussed by the Appeal Board in On_th_e Matter _of _C_ommonweal th Edison Co _(Z_lon _ Station. Units _1 & 2)_, 7 AEC 457 (1974) .
The Appeal Board wrote:
The rule governing subpoenas...upon which Intervenors re*/ for their i
discovery, provides that a showing of ' general relevance aay be required. This standard is derived from the language of Section 6 (c) l of the Administrative Procedure Ace, 5 U.S.C. 555 (d) . While the words dif fer somewhat from the ' relevance' standard appearing in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules, courts do not appear to have accorded a different scope to the discovery which they encompass...where the l court, in construing a discovery request subject to the ' general I
relevance' standard, evaluated documents in terms of whether they were ' reasonably relevant to the proceeding. '...in any event, in according a broad and liberal treatment to the rules, courts have long l construed the relevancy standard as allowing discovery in response to l
a subpoena to be under taken unless it is ' palpable that the evidence sought can have no possible bearing on the issues'... Discovery may be had 'not merely for the purpose of producing evidence to be used at the (hearing) but also for discovery of evidence, indeed, for leads as to where evidence may be located.. 10 CFR ! 2.720 specifically
_ ~ , - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
pr:cludss c:nsidarotion cf whether the noterial sought will be admissible in evidence. in short, the rules call for every relevant fact, however remote, to be brought out for the inspection not only of the opposing party but for the benefit of the (board) which in ~
due course can eliminate those facts which are not to be considered in determining the ultimate issued. ,!,8,,! 0, pg s . 461 - 2.
Thus, it's clear that this Board must construe the term relevant in the broadest sense. Relevancy is not to be constued in the narrow, almost paleozoic, manner proposed by Applicants. Rather, any information possessed by Applicant, unless it is privileged, that is remotely connected with the contention, even if not admissible, is discoverable. With this test in mind which is sanctioned by the M
Appeal Board, let us review the Sunflower's Interrogatories & Applicant's responses.
6.- Sunflower's first question was not answered. FSAR Appendix 13 (a) is merely a ta' ale, it is not a demonstration that the plume exposure pathway EPZ &
the ingertion exposure EPZ have been established with the consideration set forth in the question. Sunflower asks that Applicant be compelled to answer the question.
Further, Applicant objects to the interrogatory concerning the ingestion exposure EPZ as irrelevant. The question is based on 10 CFR 550.33(g) and 10 CFR $50.47 (c) (2) . The regulations call for consideration of both the plume exposure pathway EPZ and the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ. The regulation
The nexus between the question and contention One is clear. The question deals with the capabilities of local organizations to meet emergencies and how this ability was factored into the Ingestion exposure EPZ & plume exposure pathway EPZ. This is a part of (or at least should be a part of) Applicant's emergency evacuation plans. Further, consideration is being given (47 F.R.12639, March 24, 1982) to extending the plume EPZ to 20 miles. Simply put, Applicant has not answered interrogatory #1 and Sunflower desires this Board to compel Applicant to do so.
Sunflower asks that Applicant answer interrogatories 3 & 4 when they
~
l 7.
obtain the information requested.
- 8. -Intarregotcry #5 csks for o demonstration that ecch cf the planning cnd evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654, Rev. I have been met. Clearly, Applicant's response does not answer the interrogatory. Referring to a cross reference that lists the criteria does not answer the question. Sunflower asks for an order compelling Applicant to answer the question.
- 9. Interrogatory 6 has not been fully answered. As stated above, this Board should follow a broad standard in discovery and should reject Applicant's l narrow, confined view. To the extent Applicant has not answered the interrogatory, Sunflower requests an order from this Egggf compelling Applicant to answer interrogatory #6,
- 10. Interrogatory 7 (c) has not been answered. Based on the discussion above as to the scope and breadth of discovery, Sunflower requests an order from this Board compelling Applicant to answer interrogatory 7 (c).
- 11. Applicants object to interrogatory #8 on the grounds of relevance to contention 1. As set forth above, this Board should adopt a broad discovery standard.
Example initiating conditions are specific events which cause the declaration of one of the four classes of emergency. Such initiating conditions include: fuel damage indication; loss of offsite power; a tornado on site; fires; instrument readings outside of the manual range, etc. These initiating conditions are the first step in assessing and declaring an emergency. Only then can the utility notify offsite officials about the emergency. For example, the NRC response to any l
notification from a licensee will be related to, but not limited by, the licensee j estimate of severity. See NUREG-0654, pg.1-3.
- 12. Further the NRC itself asked a similar question concerning emergency planning dated December 21, 1981 at page #6 related to the criterium, Emergency Classification System of NUREG-0654. Based on law and fact, interrogatory #8 should be answered and Sunflower asks that Applicant be compelled to do so.
- 13. Clearly interrogatory #9 is relevant as that term is defined by the Appeal
(
Board. The declaration of site emerg ncies is directly related to contention one.
Sunflower asks that Applicant be compelled to answer interrogatory #9 14 Sunflower assumes that Applicant will answer Interrogatory #10 when the information is available.
- 15. Sunflower assumes that Applicant will answer interrogatory #11 when the information is available. Sunflower asks 'that Appilcant be compelled to answer the last sentence in the interrogatory. This part of the interrogatory is not affected by the recent amendments to the NRC Rules of Practice on financial viability of utilities. The question relates to the financial viability of Applicant's plan
& not the financial viability of the utility.
E
- 16. Sunflower assumes that Applicant will answer interrogatory #12 when the information is available. Sunflower further requests this Board to order Applicant to answer the entire interrogatory notwithstanding Applicant's objection.
- 17. NUREG-0654 requires licensees to have meteorological monitoring equipment to assess the impact of radioactive releases and to aid in the implementation of emergency response decisions (pp 2-1 and 2-2). Criterium E.4.g. also requires licensees to notify offsite authorities about meterological conditions. The licensees are to provide projected doses for offsite areas using this data.
Obviously, all meteorological instrumentation should meet the appropriate standards and not be vulnerable to the adverse environmental conditions postulated in the interrogatory. Based on this and the bread discovery standard outlined above, Applicant should be compelled to answer interrogatory #14
- 18. Based on the broad discovery standard set forth above, interrogatory #15 should be answered. The interrelationships between the contention and the interrogatory is clear on the face of the interrogatory.
19 Sunflower asks that this Board compel Appilcant to answer interrogatory
- 18 for the reasons set forth in our request to compel the answer to interrogatory #1.
- 20. Applicant clearly has not answered the questions (#19) and should be compelled to do so. To the extent that an ' objection has been imposed, Sunflower requests that this Board, based on the broad discovery standard set forth above, overrule the objection and compel Applicant to answer the interrogatory number 19
responded by ruling that the issue is not yet ripe, but that discovery could be done beyond the stop work order.
Applicant refuses to yield from its viewpoint, so Sunflower asks for a definite ruling permitting discovery on quality assurance beyond the February 1978 stop work order so that this issue can be rephrased for possible inclusion as a contention.
'29.
For the reasons set forth above as to the scope of discovery, Sunflower requests Appilcant be compelled to answer interrogatories #63 and #64 The question is whether it is worthwhile to Install an automated SLCS. To answer this b
question, the Board should consider the consequences of ATWS. Thus, the interroga-tories should be answered.
30.
For the reasons set forth above as to the scope of discovery, Sunflower requests that Applicant be compelled to answer interrogatories #67, #68, #71 and
- 73. As to interrogatory #72, the word foam should be boron & we ask that Applicant be compelled to answer the question.
f Respectfully Submitted, I E
^)
Daniel D. Wilt [
Attorney for Sunflower Alliance, Inc.
- =.
5 h:
5.
i::
5.k
?
i::.
G.'.*.*
=.
- s
- =.
==
ns Ib
.a 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.