|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. f32$
DOCHETE0 USNRC
'[ .
January 19, 1988 18 Ju 21 41 :39 s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f0' Ci abeh-euw. .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k f
a In the Matter of )
) ,
GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA ,
) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2) )
LICENSEE'S OBJECTION TO SPECIAL l PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER l t
I. Introduction P
On January 6, 1988, the Licensing Board's "Memorandum and ,
l Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference; Ruling on contentions; Scheduling)," dated January 5, 1988, was served upon the parties. The Memorandum and Order constitute a special prehearing conference order issued under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.751a(d).
Pursuant to that regulation, Licensee files this objection to the :
order.1/ r 1/ Section 2.751a(d) provides that "(t]he filing of objections !
shall not stay the decision unless the presiding officer so or- t ders." Licensee does not seek a stey of the order. To the con- t trary, it is critical to the THI-2 cleanup program that the ac-f tivities launched by the Board's order proceed as scheduled, 8801250396 890119 1h O' I gDR ADOCK 0 go j
D Licensee does not ask the Board to reverse its rulings on the admissibility of contentions. Rather, Licensee's objection goes to statements in the Memorandum and Order which reflect the Board's view of its jurisdiction, the scope of the proceeding and the Board's role vis-a-vis the Staff and the Commission. Because the scope of evidentiary presentations could be affected, it is important to establish promptly a uniform understanding of the scope of the adjudication.
Referring to a December 29, 1987 letter from Staff cc..nsel, the Board states:
For some reason, the Staff apparently be-lieves that the Commission only authorized this Board to consider whether or not the prohibition in the technical specifications against disposal of AGW should be deleted, and that, once the deletion of the prohibi-tion has been authorized and after the Staff has reviewed the (as yet to be sub-mitted) specific design system for the evaporator, the Staff on its own vill de-termine whether that specific design sys-tems's anticipated environmental impacts fall within the scope of those estimated in the PEIS, Supplement No. 2. We disagree.
Had the Commission intended to restrict our jurisdiction in any manner it would have so stated and it would not have issued a No-tice of Opportunity For A Prior Hearing (emphasis added.) Thus we conclude that during the adjudicatory process it must be
- established on the record before us that the cost benefit analysis for the design system of the proposed evaporator meets the ALARA standard.
Memorandum and Order at 6 n.4.
Licer:ca objects to this holding by the Licensing Board.
As explained more fully below, it is Licensee's position that I
l
O O
in any operating license amendment proceeding, the presiding board's role generally is to decide the matters in controversy, while the Staff raakes the remainder of the requisite findings and takes the licensing action. Second, in this particular proceeding, deciding the contentions is not the equivalent of deciding the license amendment request, which in turn is not the equivalent of approving or rejecting Licensee's proposal, II. The Licensing Board's Role is to Decide the Matters in Controversy In the footnote quoted above, the Board appears to require the presentation of evidence on an asserted contention basis rejected by the Board earlier in the same footnote. In the text of its ruling on Contention 1, the Board ruled that the asserted basis it accepted is Joint Petitioners' allegation "that the ALARA principle has not been complied with because the selected open cycle evaporation method would release all of the tritium and a quantity of the radionuclides whereas other methods would not release all the radioactivity." Memorandum and Order at 7. In apparent contrast, the Board in its foot-note calls for a showing that a "cost benefit analysis for the design system of the proposed evaporator meets the ALARA stan-dard." Id. at 6 n.4. This evidence would not be required to meet the contention accepted by the Board, and thus would seem to be directed at an uncontested matter.
The Commission's regulations provide that in a contested proceeding on an application for an operating license, matters not put into controversy by the parties will be examined and decided by the Licensing Board only where it determines that a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists. The Staff, depending on the resolution of those matters, then makes the requisite findings and issues, denies or appropriately conditions the license. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760a.
If a Licensing Board invokes its section 2.760a sua sponte au-thority, it must set forth such a determination in a separate order with findings and reasons, and the Commission itself then reviews the determination and decides if the sua sponte issue should remain in the proceeding. Texas Utilities Generatino Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-24, 14 N.R.C. 614, 615 (1981); id., CLI-81-36, 14 N.R.C.
1111 (1981).
While section 2.760a does not expressly refer to operating license amendment proceedings, the regulation clearly should be applied to amendment cases. When the Commission adopted sec-tion 2.760a in 1972, it explained that, in contrast to the con-struction permit stage, at the operating license stage a hear-ing is required only upon the request of a person whose interest may be affected. 37 Fed. Reg. 15127, 15128-29 (1972).
The same is true for an operating license amendment proceeding.
It is completely different from a construction permit
6 proceeding, where a hearing is mandated and all findings requi-site to licensing are made through the adjudicatory process.
Licensee's review of amendment decisions reveals no instance of a licensing board going beyond the contentions to address cther matters encompassed by the amendment request.
Licensee's position appears to be consistent with the Ap-peal Board's reasoning in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-869, 26 N.R.C.
(July 21, 1987). The Appeal Board noted it is not clear wheth-er section 2.760a authorizes a board to exercise sua sponte au-thority in an operating license amendment proceeding.
ALAB-869, supra, slip op. at 14. But see Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-739, 18 N.R.C. 335, 339 n.6 (1983). While the Appeal Board is si-lent on the question of whether the limitation in section 2.760a applies, it appears to assume that it does. Certainly, if the board were authorized to decide all issues associated with the amendment, it would not be necessary even to think about whether sua sponte authority existed to decide matters not in controversy.
It follows that if the Licensing Board, in the absence of Commission-approved sua sponte determinations, is to decide only the matters in controversy, it is the NRC Staff which makes the remaining findings requisite to the licensing deter-mination on the amendment request. Thus, even if approval of
k the amendment request required approval of Licensee's evapora-tion proposal (a proposition we challenge below), the Board is not in a position to approve or reject the proposal, a decision which requires a consideration of matters outside of the con-tentions.
III. The Scope of the Proceeding is Limited to the License Amendment Recuest As stated by the Commission in its Notice of Coportunity for Prior Hearing, the Commission is considering issuance of an amendment to the TMI-2 operating license which "would delete the current prohibition on disposal of accident-generated water imposed by Technical Specifications 1.17, 3.9.13 and 3/4.9.13."
52 Fed. Reg. 28626 (1987). The Ccmmission further stated that
"(c]ontentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration." Id. at 28627. The Commis-sion also reiterated its 1981 policy that "any future proposal for disposition of the accident-generated water shall be re-ferred to the Commission for approval."
The question of whether or not the current prohibition should be removed requires an assessment of whether or not one or more acceptable disposal methods exist. Which wrticular disposal method will be used is *.he decision which the Commis-sion will make, taking into account the Board's findings on the contentions and the Staff's findings in the PEIS.2/ It is not 2/ NUREG-0683, supp. No. 2 (June 1987).
c 4
the Board's job to approve or disapprove of Licensee's propos-al, but rather to decide the contentions relevant to the amend-ment' request. This is not a restriction on the Board's jurisdiction. See Memorandum and Order at 6 n.4. Rather it is the required reading of the Commission's notice and regula-tions.d/
As Licensee argued in response to Contention 4, the Com-mission, with the aid of any findings which emanate from this Board, will approve a disposal method in principle and will then grant the Staff authority to amend the license to allow disposal of the water. Once the prohibition is removed, the license will still include a provision stating that "ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER shall be discharged in accordance with NRC-approved procedures." "Once the license is amended to re-move the prohibition against disposal of the accident-generated water, the licensee will submit a safety evaluation report and specify the particular engineering and monitoring details of the approved method." NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 7.2. 'See "Licensee's Response to Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by SVA and TMIA," November 12, 1987, at 26 n.8.
2/ The Board could decide one or more contentions negative to Licensee's evaporator proposal, while the Commission could still dpprove the proposal based upon factors not considered via the contentions.
1/ If the Licensing Board's function is to approve a particular disposal method, Licensee could find itself facing a series of l
hearings, each exploring in some detail a new proposal until one l
endorsed by the Board is found.
I
's Detailed system design information for the proposed dis-posal method is not required in order to decide whether or not to remove the prohibition on disposal (i.e., to decide the license amendment request). Thus, contrary to the view ex-pressed by the Board in its footnote 4, such information is not required in order to decide relevant contentions. To hold otherwise would be to require Licensee to purchase and proceed with an evaporator system when the NRC has not yet even decided to authorize disposal, let alone approved a method.E# Admit-tedly, this is unlike the situation in an operating license proceeding where a detailed FSAR is available. However, in this case there is nothing comparable to a construction permit, representing regulatory approval for the basics of the project.
It may be useful at this juncture to review briefly the genesis of Licensee's proposal. In its July 31, 1980 report to the NRC on Disposal of Processed Water, GPU Nuclear stated, at page 77:
On the basis of overall technical merit, analysis indicates that the con-trolled discharge of the processed, diluted water to the Susquehanna River is the sim-plest, least costly option and involves in-significant environmental impact, as do the competing options. However, GPU Nuclear has opted not to recommend discharge to the river in recognition of an existing public percept.'on that unique health risks are associated with this disposal option.
1/ It is irrelevant that Licensee may of its own volition de-cide, because of the delays in NRC decision-making, to assume the economic risks and proceed with a contract for an evaporator sys-tem.
fw
GPU Nuclear agrees with the Staff's conclusion in the PEIS that there were a number of acceptable disposal options, and that continued storage of the water on site is not a responsible alternative. After considering the technical merits of several options, as well as public, institutional and political con-cerns, in 1986 GPU Nuclear selected evaporation as the pre-ferred option for disposal of TMI-2 vater, even though dis-charge to the river would be acceptable under the regulatory requirements imposed at Three Mile Island and at other nuclear power plant sites. We did not then harbor a special attachment to evaporators. Rather, GPU Nuclear simply made that choice in an attempt to get on with the cleanup job. Ironically, the Company's responsiveness to public opinion has not served to avoid protracted public debate and decision-making, but has led to full hearings with the Company in the position of defending not the technically best disposal option (river discharge), but the option perceived as being responsive to public opinion.
With this delay the Company has made an increasing commitment of resources to the evaporation method in order to mitigate schedule delays.
In short, the Commission's notice and regulations, as well as its policy establishing its own peculiar decision-making role in this instance, lead to the conclusion that it is the Licensing Board's role to decide the contentions, the Commis-sion's role to approve a disposal method in principle,E/ and 1/ It is expected that if a hearing had not been requested, the Commission would have proceeded to make this decision on the (Continued next page) 4
.g.
a f
the-Staff's role to take the licensing action and subsequently review and approve the details of the disposal option adopted.
While deciding the admitted contentions certainly entails con-sideration of Licensee's evaporator proposal, it does not re-quire information the Staff would subsequently need to approve the design and procedures for the disposal method' adopted.
IV. Conclusion Licensee respectfully requests that the Board clarify its special prehearing conference order ;cnsistent with the above description of the Board's jurisdiction and the scope of the proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE L A. L%
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
Counsel for Licensee 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 l
Dated: January 19, 1988 (Continued) l basis of the information contained in the Staff's PEIS, and not l on the basis of more detailed, system-specific design in-formation.
i i
-J.
b January 19, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA
) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)
Station,. Unit 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Licensee's Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order" were served this 19th day of January, 1988, by U.S. mail, first class, post-age prepaid, upon the parties identified on the attached Service List.
..=: = k .
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
l l
l l
I
, v n ww , w -, -
J '.
I l
i 00(nE T EC*
U3NiiC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'E6 JW 21 M139 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOhh7IngNify$t, BRANCH In the Matter of )
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA
) (Disposal of Accident-
-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2) )
SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire John F. McKinstry, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Environmental Board Panel Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1712 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Ms. Frances Skolnick Atomic Safety and Licensing 2079 New Danville Pike Board Panel Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Vera L. Stuchinski Washington, D.C. 20555 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. William D. Travers Board Panel Director, Three Mile Island U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cleanup Project Directora Commission P.O. Box 311 Washington, D.C. 20555 Middletown, Pennsylvania 1705 Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Services Branch Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
_.