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
_
00CKETED W W h csPOND g USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
- k9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEPORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fFg Cg , 3 p ,
In The Matter Of DocketNos50-440b$,Ud Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. et al 50-441-OL (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 &2)
SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE NOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANT TO ANSWER SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
- 1. Sunflower Alliance Inc., et al., one of the Intervenors in this matter, moves the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board for its order compelling the Applicant herein to answer and respond to the Second Set of Interrogatories filed by Sunflower herein.
- 2. A Brief is attached in support of this Motion.
Respectfully submitted, d
I[aniel D. Wilt /, Esq.
Attorney for Sunflowe.r Alliance Inc.
P.O. Box 08159 Cleveland, Ohio 44108 (216) 249-8777 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Motion to Compel was sent to all persons on the Service List, on this ! day of September, 1982.
DaJlU&
Ddniel D. Wilt /[ Esq.
[ Attorney for Sunflower Alliance Inc.
l
~
l 8209150297 820910 DR ADOCK 05000
. _ _ _ _ ,_ - _ D_T3
BRIEF
- 1. On or about April 30, 1982, Sunflower Alliance Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Sunflower) filed its second set of interrogatories to the Applicant. In August, 1982, answers were filed along with numerous objections.
Counsel for the parties have discussed Applicant's objections and while a few objections were resolved most of the objactions were not resolved. Sunflower believes that both sides have made good faith efforts to resolve the disputes.
However, different interpretatican of relevancy prevent resolution of the dispute except by Board action.
PART ONE--LEGAL DISCUSSION
- 2. The essential question is how broad is the discovery mechanism provided for under the Commissions 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 rules p'rovide:
...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 th'e discovery of admissible evidence.10 CFR 2.740 (b)(1).
This means that discovery is available if there is a reasonable relationship between the material requested and the centention.
- 3. The Appeal Boards have had several opportunities to discuss the discovery rules'in reported decisions. One of the first cases on discovery is In the Matter of Northern States Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generatina Plant. Unit 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ ~ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __
r l' by parties, are designed to make affirmative contri-butions to contested administrative proceedings. One l of the areas of discovery is to particularize the areas of contraversy and, within those areas, to focus upon the issues and contentions which must i be resolved in the determination of the case. Another 3 purpose served by discovery is to bring about the
! disclosure of properly producible relevant infor-mation and material... IBID, pg. 392 l
l l 4. Another decision discussing the discovery rules is In the Matter of l Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station. Units 1 and 2), 7 A.E.C. 457 (1974). Here i
the Appeal Board commented as follows:
f' ...The applicable Commission discovery rules are strikingly parallel to the analogous provisions of the Federal Rules 4
of Civil Procedure... The Supreme Court long ago made it
, clear that the deposition - discovery portions of the i Federal Rules 'are to be accorded a broad and liberal
! treatment and that civil trials in the federal courts
) no longer need be carried on in the dark'. Rather, '
i (m)utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered
! by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either oarty may compel the other to disaorne whatever facts he has in his possession... (m)odern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose...They
, together with pretrial procedures make a trial l'ess a j game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with i
the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent... (emphasis added) IBID. pgs 460-1 1
The Appeal Board concluded in the Zion Station case:
1 ...But despite this discretion and latitude, we think i that the ' broad' liberal interpretation given to the j Federal Rules must similarly be accorded the Commission's j discovery rules. IBID. pg 461.
) Sunflower concludes that discovery should be construed and that the contentions s
should be construed as broadly as this Board concluded in its order dated March 3,1982. .
1 j . 5. Relevance is the key word as it was in Sunflower's first Motion to
] Compel. At that time, Sunflower quoted from the Zion Staticq case. Since that j case discusses the question of relevance, Sunflower again quotes from the i
i case as follows:
3 The rule governing subpoenas...upon which intervenors rely for their discovery, provides that a showing of ' general relevance' may be required. This standard is derived from the language of Section 6(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5USC 555(d). While the words differ some-what 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 court, in construing a discovery request subject to the ' general 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 construed the relevancy standard as allowing discovery in response to a subpoena to be undertaken 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) 4 but also for discovery of evidence, indeed', for leads
+
as to where evidence may be located.. 10 CFR 2.740 j ._ : specifically precludes consideration of whether the l material 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 l opposing party but for the benefit of the (board) which i in due course can eliminate those facts which are not to
! . be considered in determining the ultimate issue. In the
! Matter of Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion rtation.' Units 1
- and 2), 7 AEC 457, 461-2 (1974) i Sunflower has the right to discovery any matter that is " reasonably relevant i to the admitted contention". Sunflower has the right to discover " leads as j to where evidence may be located". The narrow interpretation of the Rules and the contentions offerred by Applicant simply has no place in these proceedings I and the Board should end the contraversy for ever by defining relevant. The l
definition of relevance must be broad and must encourage the location of i
facts.
l =
PART TWO--DISCUSSION OF OBJECTIONS l
l
- 6. This Motion to Compel covers only interrogatories 43 through 87.
l l The answers to this portion of the Second Set of Interrogatories were filed on
- August 11, 1982. Pursuant to Hotion made by Sunflower, the Motion to Compel l
5
. _ ~ -
-4 this section of the Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicant must be filed by September 12, 1982. Other answers to other sections of the Second set of Interr-ogatories to Applicant have been filedlet other times and a Motion to Compel Answers to those other sections will be filed at a later time. Sunflower expressly reserves the right to file additional Motions to Compel.
- 7. The objections to Interrogatories 44 - 47 will be discussed to-gather. Applicant objects on the basis that the interrogatories are beyond the scope of issue one. Sunflower hereby restricts and limits Interrogatory 44 to the emergency operations f acility. As so limited, 44 - 47 are clearly relevant to issue one.
! 8. Sunflower wants Applicant to answer the questions found in Chapter 5 of NUREG-0814. Section 5.1 deals with Integration with Overall Emergency Planning. Section 5.2 deals with location, structure and habitability, etc.
NUREG-0696 states that the EOF shall be the location where the licensee provides overall management of licensee resources in response to an emergency having I
actual or potential environmental consequences. It further states that the licensee shall use the EOF to cordinate its emergency response activities with i those of local, State and Federal agencies, including the NRC. Further, this Board in its August 18, 1982 order stated that the interface between Applicant and offsite personnel is relevant to issue one.
- 9. Issue one deals with the issue of whether Applicant's emergency evacuation plans are adequate. The EOL is the place where offsite personnel responsible for evacuat, ion shall obtain information frow Applicant who is, af ter all, responsible in the first place for activating the EAL involved. Thus, NUREG-l -
0814 questions as they relate to the EOL are relevant to the contention. The l
location of the EOL is relevant to the contention because offsite personnel must travel to it. The location of the backup EOL is relevant to the contention
1 I
j because offsite personnel must travel to it.
- 10. Question 47 is relevant because Sunflower has learned that the i
visitor's center of the plant will be located at the EOL. Thus, if the EOL is i
being used substantially for other purposes its usefulness in the event of an 4
emergency may be diminished. As to the definition of " unauthorized". the question seeks to find out if Applicant has designated who and who may not be present at the EOL at any given time. This is relevant because if the EOL has " visitors".
j and an emergency. occurs, the visitors may prevent offsite personnel from entering the EOL and valuable time may be lost. For these reasons, Sunflower asks that Applicant be compelled to answer interrogatories 44 - 47.
1
- 11. Interrogatory 56 is relevant to issue one for the following reasons.
- This Board has ruled that issue one is broad. See order dated September 9,1981.
j i
The questions deals with the source term of radioactive iodine release. If an accident at Perry bypasses the suppression pool and there is a loss of containment t
i integrity, then, radioactive iodine will be released. See NUREG-0772. NUREG-0772 t
j 'also suggests that severe accidents involving core melt dominate the risk to public safety. Evacuation planning deals with limiting the risk to public safety.
1 Thus, if the safeguards listed in the interrogatory are good enough, the risk of radioactive iodine release is lower and this affects emergency planning and l
l the designation of EAL.
i
- 12. The protective actions to be employed depend on the severity of the accident. Potassium idiode use as a thyroid blocking agent is one of the elements of emergency planning. Thus, if the safeguards listed in the interrogatory l
are good enough, the emergency plan is affected. The interrogatory is ' reasonably r,elevant ' to the contention and must be answered.
- 13. Finally, the objectives of emergency response plans should be to I
provide dose savings for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs. See NUREG-0396. If the safeguards listed in the
I ,.
i are good enough, it should increase dos savings which affects the emergency plan in terms of its EAL. For these reasons, this question should be answered.
i
- 14. Questions 59 and 60 should be answered. In 59, Sunflower wants j to know what are the consequences in terms of dose exposures to the public of the evacuation time estimates set forth in the FSAR. Sunflower believes that the CRAC-2 code does provide this information. If the exposure time set forth in the FSAR will expose the public to greater doses that permitted by the PAGs, then,
] the emergency plan is worthless. This is why the question is relevant.
I 15. In 60, Sunflower wants to know what evacuation time estimates are acceptable to Applicant. Then, taking the time estimates acceptable to i
Applicant, what are the consequences to the public of these set of consequences.
l This question relates to emergency planning because it will provide a realistic assessment of the operation of the plan. Finally, in 59 and 60 Applicant wants 1
j to consider other factors in terms of the source term. Yet, in interrogatory 56 l . Applicant refuses to discuss the source term. Applicant can not have it both ways.
- 16. Applicant has advised Sunflower to look at the FES for answers to 61 and 62. The FES does show some analysis but only in terms of probabilities.
i Sunflower wants pure numbers not probability estimates for these consequences for releases from BWR-1 to BWR-4 categories. These consequences relate to issue l one because depending on the nature of the release Applicant has discretion to s
4 4
determine what EAL to employ. Emergency planning is to avoid the consequences of 4
releases. If the releases are of sufficient magnitude, it could render the emergency evacuation plan useless. Hence, Sunflower has the right to know what l the releas9s are so that it can plug the releases into the time estimates to 2 -
determine the usefulness of the plan.
i i
i
- .. .~ . .___ _. ._ ..
4
- 7 i
- 17. Sunflower is entitled to answers to Interrogatories 63 and 64 as they apply to the ingestion pathway EPZ. The ingestion pathway EPZ is an i
} integral part of emer8ency planning.10 CFR 50.47 (a)(10) requires Applicant to 1
1 develope and have in place protective actions for the ingestion exposure path-i way EPZ appropriate to the locale. NUREG-0654 states that an emergen y plan will include elements common to assessing or taking protective actions for i
j both pathways. Interrogatories 63 and 64 deal specifically with these re-quirements which is why the questions are reasonably relevant to issue one.
1
! 18. Furthermore, a Petition for Rulemaking has been filed by the l
Citizen's Task Force (PRM-50-31, 47 FR 12639, March 24,1982) which would extend the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ to twenty (20) miles. It has been known for at least 25 years that reactor accidents can cause serious off-site 4
consequences beyond the present 10 mile radius EPZ. Jan Beyes wrote in 4
! The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December, 1980, as follows:
i
) (t) hat early fatalities (death within 60 days) can j occur as far as 20 miles from a reactor is not
! really in doubt...(t)here is a threshold for the i 1 occurrence of early fatalities (approximately 150 I rem to the whole body)...if meteorological
) conditions are unfavorable (low winds, low turbulence,
} and high deposition), threshold doses can extend out beyond 20 miles.
- Dr. Richard Webb wrote in The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants 1
j (University of Mass., 1976) at page 85:
1, j ... extrapolation from WASH-740 (Brookhaven) pre-
) dicts radiation cloud with a maximum lethal range of 60 miles.
The regulations and NUREG-0654 make the ingestion pathway EPZ relevant to I eeergency planning. Thus, Applicant should be compelled to answer the questions.
l
- 19. Question 69 is relevant and should be answered. Applicant may
,l 5
1 i
i have an assumption of what is acceptable in terms of human life loss and injury I
i as a cost of doing business. If this assumption exists, then Applicant's j emergency planning and emergency action. levels will be based on this
, assumption. This assumption could be downgrading the emergency planning to i
l something less serious than it really is. Sunflower is entitled to this information so that it can determine the realistic effectiveness of the
,. emergency plan.
- 20. Question 75 should be answered. NUREG-0654 states that Applicant evaluates an emergency situation and then determines what EAL is
} present. Depending on the EAL chosen, this determines what, if anything, i
l Applicant reports to offsite personnel. Thus, offsite planning is not invoked i
j until Applicant determines that it should be invoked. The Board says on page 6 of its August 18, 1982 order "means for advising the public are related to public safety during an emergency and to the admitted contention".
In the Working Draft, Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Lake County DSA, March,1982, Ex. D-11, it appears that before any offsite action is taken the Applicant must make the determination of the nature and extent of emergency and then notify offsite personnel. See attached Exhibit 1.
- 21. Question 80 should be answered. Sunflower does not believe that the FES answers the question. Applicant's answer doesn't cite anything which would show that the emergency plan has taken into account the consideration of liguid pathway. This question is reasonably related to issue one.
- 22. Applicant has agreed to answer interrogatory 85 except for anything related to security planning. Sunflower reserves the right to file a Motion.to Compel on this question after receipt of the answer.
- 23. Applicant has agreed to try to provide a list in answer to Interrogatory 86. Sunflower reserves the right to file a Motion to Compel on this question after receipt of the answer.
- 24. Applicant has agreed to answer Interrogatory 88 within the limits of this Board's order. Sunflower reserves the right to file a Motion to Compel on this question after receipt of the answer.
Respectfully submittsd, h-65 aniel D. Wilt, Esq.
Attorney for Sunflower Alliance Inc.
P.O. Box 08159 Cleveland, Ohio 44108 (216) 249-8777
/
0 e
i si i o i i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- -- -- -- - --- ' -- ~
^
Exhibit D-1. Summary of Emergency Response Sequence AGENCY NOTIFICATION ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION 7
O RADIATION EXPOSURE CONTROL Alert 7 PERIMETER CONTROL y S te 7 Emergency MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPORT 4
7 Emergen y rot tv NBW NOM KARON
{o Actions
% TRAFFIC CONTROL SECURITY CONTROL Evacuate TRANSPORT CARLESS Time Af ter Start Of Emergency CONFIRM EVACUATION II Food, Water.
OPERATION OF RECEPTION Livestock Control CENTERS
- - _ _ -- -___--- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _