|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20151L5181997-08-0505 August 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) Re SL Nevin Deliberately Falsifying Records of RECW Sample Documentation on 960207 ML20151L3671997-08-0505 August 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately).Orders That SA Blacklock Prohibited from Engaging in Activities Licensed by NRC for 5 Yrs from Date of Order ML20203H6891997-06-0202 June 1997 Transcript of 970602 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa ML20093G4541995-10-18018 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning Procedures for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20083N3971995-04-26026 April 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves ML20081B3811995-03-0101 March 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Suppl 5 to GL 88-20, IPEEE for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20058E0151993-11-14014 November 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants Prematurely Shut Down ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057F2191993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) Eliminating Licensee Requirement to Follow & Maintain in Effect Emergency Plans ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20045D8121993-06-14014 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54 Re FSAR Update Submittals. ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095H5611992-04-28028 April 1992 Affidavit of Lm Hill.* Affidavit of Lm Hill Supporting Util Position That Circumstances Exist Warranting Prompt NRC Action on NRC Recommendation That Immediately Effective Order Be Issued Approving Decommissioning Plan ML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals 1997-08-05
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8971991-08-0909 August 1991 Lilco Responses to Petitioner Filings of 910805 & 06.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8571991-08-0707 August 1991 Petitioners Response to Lilco Re Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Suggest That Util post-hearing Filing Does Not Dispose of Any Issue as to Util Compliance W/Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8441991-08-0707 August 1991 Motion for Offical Notice to Correct Representation.* Moves Board to Take Official Notice of Encl NRC Records to Correct Representation Made at Prehearing Conference. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0721991-07-22022 July 1991 Petitioners First Emergency Motion for Stay.* Movants Urge Commission,In Interest of Justice,To Enjoin Lilco from Taking Any Actions Under possession-only License Which Might Moot Renewed Application for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D1541991-07-22022 July 1991 Lilco Response to Petitioner Emergency Motions.* Believes Petitioner Emergency Motions Should Be Denied to End Frivolous Pleadings & Burdens of Time & Resources of Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0841991-07-21021 July 1991 Petitioners Second Emergency Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission,Ex Parte,To Enjoin Lilco,From Any & All Acts W/Respect to Shoreham Which Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Representation in Court.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D2071991-07-15015 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (Swrcsd) Appeal from LBP-91-26.* Appeal Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4051991-07-12012 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE-2s Contentions on Possession Only License Amend.* Concludes That Contentions Should Be Rejected & Request for Hearing on Possession Only License Amend Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4001991-07-12012 July 1991 Movant-intervenors Motion for Change of Venue of Prehearing Conference.* Intervenors Request Change of Venue of 910730 Prehearing Conference from Hauppauge,Ny to Washington DC Area.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D3891991-07-10010 July 1991 Lilco Support of NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration of LBP-91-26.* for Reasons Listed,Nrc 910625 Motion Should Be Granted & Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene in Amend Proceeding Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4311991-07-0303 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Contentions on Confirmatory Order,Physical Security Plan & Emergency Preparedeness License Amends.* Petitioner Contentions Should Be Rejected & License Amends Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B3531991-07-0202 July 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Informs That Filing & Svc Requirements Presents No Obstacle to Filing W/Aslb or Svc Upon Any Parties.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 910702.Granted for Licensing Board on 910702 ML20082B2571991-06-28028 June 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Petitioners Urge ASLB to Grant Variance in Svc Procedures Requested to Allow Svc of Judge Ferguson.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B2461991-06-28028 June 1991 Movant-Intervenor Brief in Support Accompany Notice of Appeal.* School District Urges Commission to Reverse & Remand Dismissal Order W/Appropriate Guidance.W/Ceritifcate of Svc 1993-10-08
[Table view] |
Text
- .. . _ .
4 j
- 6 Lj9377 .
00CMElED
- UstEC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
~
'93 f5 20 P A :?4
)
In the Matter of )
)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) Docket No Misc. 9341
) ::
Department of Law and Public ) l Safety's Requests ) 4
)
I ,
PHILADELPHIA FI.FrTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE 'IO.
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S OCTOBFR 14.1993 ORDER INTRODUCTION ;
By Order dated October 14,1993, the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
("NRC" or " Commission') requested responses to two questions from, in!C[ Alia, Philadelphia ,
Electric Company ("PECo") relating to a request by the State of New Jersey Department ofI.aw and Public Safety ("New Jersey" or " State"). New Jersey seeks additional NRC consideration f I
of environmental impacts associated with the shipment of slightly irradiated fuct from the .
s Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to PECo's Limerick Generating Station. The Secretary of the j l
NRC has asked: ,
(1) Whether at this time either matter referenced by the State i gives rise to any hearing right under Section 189 of the Atomic !
Energy Act; and, if so, (2) Based on the State's October 8,1993 l
~
submittal, does New Jersey- meet the applicable standards for intervention under 10 C.F.R. { 2.7147 PECo submits that the answer to these two questions is a resounding "no." The NRC is barred from reconsidering the grant of the Limerick license amendments inasmuch as New Jersey failed to raise these issues before the expiration of the 60-day period for review by a J
9310280038 931020 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G- PDR 603
coun of appeals under the Hobbs Act,28 U.S.C. 5 2342(4)(1988). The order of the h%C is final and beyond the jurisdiction of the couns. Hence, it is not subject to direct or collateral attack. PECo is entitled to rely on the authorization of the NRC to receive and utilize the fuel.
Furthermore, even were a reopened heanng on late intervention potentially available to it, New Jersey has failed w demonstrate that it is entitled to such a heanng.
ARGINENT L The NRC Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider New Jersey's Request for a Heanng and Late Intervention Because the Time for Judicini Review has Fxnired.
The Limerick license amendment pennitting the receipt of the fuel from Shoreham was issued on June 23,1993# Under the Hobbs Act, the period for judicial review of this final agency action expired on August 22,1993. The NRC has held that until the period forjudicial review has expired, it may give further consideration to its otherwise final licensing action.
Florida Power and Lizht Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-80-41,12 NRC 650 (1980). However, although New Jersey admitted it knew about the planned barge shipments in early July, New Jersey elected not to bring its grievances before the NRC until -
October 8,1993, long after the 60-day for review had expired.
The State's failure to request timely NRC action cannot be excused on the basis that discussions were ongoing among the parties, or that it was disappointed with the denial of relief ;
l' The NRC had published a notice of opportunity for hearing and a no significant hazards consideration on March 31,1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 16,851, 16,867). On May 18,1993, the NRC published notice of the issuance of an environmental assessment and a finding .
of no significant impact (58 Fed. Reg. 29,010). On July 7,1993, notice ofissuance of the PECo amendment was issued (58 Fed. Reg. 36,451).
k
by the District Coart. The NRC has held that "a petitioner may not rely on the pendency of another proceeding to protect its interests and then justify its late petition on that reliance when the other proceeding fails to encompass petitioner's interests." Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian l Point Station, Unit No. 2), LBP-82-1,15 NRC 37, 39-40 (1982).
The expiration of the 60-day time period for judicial review is a jurisdictional bar to >
consideration of a final agency action by the courts. Enerry Prohe v. NRC. 872 F.2d 436,437 (D.C. Cir.1989); NatumiResources Defense Council v. NRC, 666 F.2d 595 (D.C. Cir.1981).
So, too, is it a bar for further consideration by the agency. Sec Florida Power and Licht Co.,
sp_ta,12 NRC at 652; Pan American Petroleum Corn v. Federal Power Comm'n. 322 F.2d 999,1004 (D.C. Cir.1963). Litigation and the threat thereof must end and finality be accorded to NRC decisions so that parties may rely on Commission action. As the Atomic Licensmg Appeal Board has stated:
the exclusion from a proceeding of persons or organizations who have slept on their rights does not offend any public policy favoring broad citizen involvement in nuclear licensing adjudications. Assuming that such a policy fmds footing in Section 189a . . . it must be viewed in conjunction with the equally important policy favaring the observance of established time limits.
Lonc bland Lightine Co. (5hercham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1) ALAB-743,18 NRC 387, 396 n. 37 (1983).
H. Petitioner Has Failed to Meet or Even Address the Standard ;
[or Reopeninc a ProceedInc.
Assuming arcuendo that the request for a hearing is not jurisdictionally time barred, New Jersey has failed to address and fulfill the requirements for reopening and late intervention.
b m . _ . _
4-When a petitioner seeks to intervene late in a proceeding for which the record is closed, both the late reopening a:1d intervention criteria must be satisfied. Texas Utilities Electric Co.
(Comanche Peak Steam Bectric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-04, 37 NRC 156,161 n.1 (1993).
First, New Jersey's motion to reopen is not timely. "[T]he party seeking to reopen must show that the issue it now seeks to raise cou!d not have been raised earlier.' Detroit Edison Comrany (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057,1065 (1983)
(emphasis in original). The Freeman Affidavit (Attachment A) irrefutably shows that New Jersey could have sought reopening on barge impacts at least three months ago, when the time for judicial review had not elapsed. Neither has New Jersey attempted to demonstrate it meets the exceptionally grave" issue exception contained in 10 C.F.R. I 2.734(a).
Second, contrary to the requirements of f 2.734(a)(2), New Jersey has failed to raise a significant safety or environmental issue. New Jersey has provided only speculation concernmg hypothetical environmental or safety risks of severe barge accidents on the New Jersey coast and tourism. New Jersey has offered no technical data or scientific analysis to support these conjectural assertions. However, a pany seeking to reopen an NRC proceeding must furnish affidavits "by competent individuals with knowledge of the facts alleged, er by experts in the disciplines appropriate to the issues raised." 10 C.F.R. D 2.734(b).
Third, New Jersey's petition does not demonstrate that a materially different result l would be or would have been likely had the newly pmffered evidence been cor.sidered initially.
This is the most impor: ant factor of the three-pronged test for reopening. Rout on Lightine and Power Co., South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-15, 23 NRC 595, 672 (1986).
1
5-Nothing in New Jersey's petition alleges that the NRC would have reached a different conclusion if New Jersey's arguments had been before the Commission earlier. As discussed below, the NRC has already analyzed the environmental impacts of barge transportation ofirradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors and determined that those impacts are within the bounds of the analysis of Table S-4. Petitioner does not even argue that the NRC should waive the applicability of Table S 4 per 10 C.F.R. I 2.758(b),let alone show that a different attettment of environmental impacts would result.
IH. The State Has Failed To Meet The Commission Requirements For Late Intervention.
In addition to the requirements for reopening contained in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.734, New Jersey must satisfy the separate criteria for a late filed petition for intervention. A nontimely tequest for heanng will not be entertamed absent a showing that a balancing of the factors of 10 C.F.R. 66 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) favors the petition.
A petitioner has a duty to confront the five lateness factors in its petition. Hoston Edison CA (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-816,22 NRC 461,466,468 (1985). Thus, a late ,
petition to intervene which does not even discuss these criteria must be denied. Duke Power Co. ,
(Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-615,12 NRC 350, 353-54 (1980). New Jersey's late request for a hearing contains only a flecting discussion of two of the lateness factors: good cause (Brief at 44), and availability of other means to protect the State's interests (Brief at 46).
In any event, a balancing of the five lateness factors would clearly call for denial of New Jersey's petition. Good cause for lateness is the most important factor, and, where good cause i
~
is lacking, a petition must make a compelling showing on the other factors. Lonz Island Liehtine Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1), ALAB-743.18 NRC 387,397 (1983) citing Detroit Edisen Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760, 1765 (1982). The burden of proof is on the petitioner. New Jersey admits that it knew of the intention of Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") to ship the fuel by barge in early July of this year (Brief at 10). Preoccupation with other matters does not excuse lateness. B21tl Sound Power & Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), LBP-79-16,9 NRC 711, 714 (1979). Nor does poor judgment or imprudence or a late revelation of possible adverse ,
effects from the licensing action. Id. Poor judgment is not good cause for late filing even if specific details unforeseen at first later surface. Id. at 714-715. Also, as noted pnwiously, a claim that pentioner believed that its concerns would be addressed in another proceeding will not be considered good cause. As discussed in Attachment A, Affidavit of Jan Freeman, New Jersey was fully informed of the barge option in late May or early June 1993. New Jersey relied on informal discussions and the weight of its governmental influence to persuade PECo and LIPA to drop the barge option voluntarily. New Jersey's unsuccessful persuasion is not
" good cause" for failing to invoke NRC procedures until after several shipments have already been made.
Absent a showing of good cause for late filing, New Jersey must make a " compelling showing" on the other four factors governing late intervention. Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. & Toledo Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-91-38,24 NRC 229,246-47 (1991). New Jersey has not met this heavy burden.
The first of the four remaming factors is the availability of other means whereby petitioner may protect its interest. The State has requested. in pamllel, that pursuant to i 2.206 a proceeding be instituted and is now before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requesting judicial review of the same matters. The second factor -- the extent to which peutioners' participation will assist in developing a sound record - strongly suggests that New Jersey's petition should be denied. New Jersey has not submitted any affidavits of experts nor shown it has expertise in the shipment of nuclear fuel. The third factor - the extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties -- also does not weigh in New Jersey's favor. Petitioner's interest will be adequately protected by the Staff, which has a duty to ensure that the public interest is protected in the enforcement of the Atomic Energy Act Indian Point, apnt,15 NRC at 41.
The final factor - the extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding - has been characterized as "of immense importance in the overall balancing process," Perry: Davis-Besse. sps, 34 NRC at 247. ranng Long Ishnd Lichtine Co.,
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,402 (1983). This factor most strongly compels the denial of the petition. The amendment process is long since over.
The grant of New Jersey's request would result in a hearing which would otherwise not be held.
IV. New Jersey's Petition Fails To State An Admissible Contention.
The State's petition is also defective because it fails to state a contention. As to PECO's amendment, at most a single " concern" is contained in the petition. The petition contends that the NRC failed to comply with NEPA in determining that the environmental impacts of
_g. i transportation of fuel from Shoreham to Limerick had been adequately analyzed? This contention, however. would be inadmissible because: (1) it constitutes an impermissible attack on Commission regulations under 10 C.F.R. l 2.758; and (2) it fails to meet the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. :
The crux of New Jersey's petition is a challenge to the NRC's generic evaluation, by way of rulemaking, of the environmental effects of the transportation of radioactive materials to and from nuclear power plants # Contrary to its argument, Table S-4 is applicable to barge ;
transportation. The regulations clearly denote that the shipment ofirradiated fuel from a reactor "by truck, rail, or barre" is covered by Table S-4. 10 C.F.R. 6 51.52(a)(5) (emphasis added). ;
The supporting documentation for Table S-4 explicitly includes a detailed analysis of the effects of an accident involving a barge ca Tying irradiated fuel. Egg " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1238 at 68- l 71 (December 1972). Thus, the pe:ition wking a site-specific assessment of environmental 3' In passing, New Jersey notes that its Coastal Zone Management Plan identifies NRC
" permits and licenses required for the construction and operation of nuclear facdities under the AEA of 1954, Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10," as those for which applicants must consult with the NJDEPE for consistency review. However, the New Jersey plan only refers to the initiallicensing for the construction and operation of facilities rather than to any amendments to those licenses. Moreover, the license amendments obtained by ;
PECo relate to the receipt of fuel which does not affect the coastal zone.
3' Table S-4 resulted from a generic study of the environmentalimpacts of transportation of fuel and wastes to and from nuclear reactors. 40 Fed. Reg.1005 (January 6,1975);
10 C.F.R. $ 51.52. This analysis included "the probabilities of occurrences of transportation accidents, the expected consequences of such accidents, and an analysis of the potential radiation exposures to transportation workers and the general public '
under normal conditions of transport." 40 Fed. Reg. at 1005 (January 6,1975).
b
?
t i;
impacts from barge transportation constitutes an' impermissible attack on a Commission ,
regulation per 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758. ;
i New Jersey may not question the validity of Table S-4 by way of contentions without an !
i appropriate showing. 10 C.F.R. f 2.758. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cord. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6, 31 NRC 85, 91, n.9 (1990) siling Philadelphia [
Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 21 .[
(1974) Contentions speifially challenging Table S-4 are inadmissible. Carolina Power and l T icht Comnany (Sheamn Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525, 543-44 .:
(1986); Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-825,22 NRC I
785, 793-94 (1985). Nor has New Jersey petitioned for a waiver of the applicability of Table i
S-4 nor identified how the Table has failed to accomplish its intended purpose. 10 C.F.R. 6 1 2.758(b). ;
V. New Jeney Fails To Meet ne Requirements For An !
Admissible contention. ,
A petitioner is required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b)(2) to explain the basis for the contention, provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the f 1 l proposed contention, and provide sufficient information to establish the existence of a genuine dispute with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo l Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), CL1-91-12, 34 NRC at 149, .155-56, j l
Georcia Power Co (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-91-21,33 NRC 419, -l 422-24 (1991), apxal dismissed, CLI-92-3, 35 NRC 63 (1992). The filing of ' vague, j l
unparticulanzed contentions is not permitted. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units j
?
~
b I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,468 (1982), rev'd. in turt on other grounds, CLI-83-19,17 ,
NRC 104) (1983). New Jersey has failed to meet these requirements and its petition should be denied.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the NRC lacksjurisdiction to consider New Jersey's request for a hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714. The State has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to a hearing to challenge PECo's amendment to permit it to receive the Shoreham fuel.
Respectfully submitted, WINSTON & STRAWN Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Counsel for Philadelphia Electne Company October 20,1993 L
6
-- - _ _ - _ _