|
---|
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 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 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 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 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 ML20062C6561990-10-22022 October 1990 Affidavit Requesting Withholding of Summary Rept on Evaluation of Recirculation Nozzle to Safe End Weld Indication & Proposed Disposition to Permit Unit 1 Cycle 4 Operation, from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790 ML20246J4521989-08-30030 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Terminating Proceeding).* Terminates Proceeding Per Settlement Agreement Between Limerick Ecology Action,Inc & Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890831 ML20246F1011989-08-25025 August 1989 Joint Motion for Termination of Proceedings.* Board Moved to Accept Encl Settlement Agreement,Dismiss Limerick Ecology Action,Inc (Lea) Contention W/Prejudice,Dismiss Lea as Party to Proceeding & Terminate Proceeding ML20246F0121989-08-25025 August 1989 Memorandum & Order CLI-89-17.* Staff Authorizes Issuance of Full Power License to Licensee to Operate Unit 2 After Requisite Safety Findings Under 10CFR50.57 Completed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20246F1471989-08-25025 August 1989 Settlement Agreement.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246E3431989-08-22022 August 1989 Opposition of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Motion by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Set Schedule for Discovery & Hearing.* Requests That Schedule Be Replaced W/More Reasonable Schedule,As Proposed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246C0271989-08-18018 August 1989 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Informs That D Nash Appointed as Commission Adjudicatory Employee to Advise Commission on Issues in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890818 ML20246B7721989-08-17017 August 1989 Correction of Memorandum & Order of 890815.* Advises That Refs to 49CFR2.730(c) on Page 1 & 49CFR2.710 & 49CFR2.711 on Page 2 Should Be Corrected to Read as 10CFR2.730(c),2.710 & 2.711,respectively.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890818 ML20246D7411989-08-17017 August 1989 Transcript of 890817 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion of Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-58.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20246B7571989-08-16016 August 1989 Order Responding to Limerick Ecology Action Motion for Reconsideration.* Denies Motion to Reconsider,Stay,Suspend or Revoke 890707 Order on Basis That Order Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc.Served on 890816.Re-served on 890818 ML20246B7751989-08-16016 August 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Rl Anthony 890623 Request for Hearing for Intervention in Remand Proceeding & for Stay of Low Power Authorization.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890816 ML20246B7931989-08-15015 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Request for Expedited Answer).* Denies Licensee 890811 Request for Expedited Answer from NRC & Limerick Ecology Action on Basis That Request Lacks Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890816 ML20245H8491989-08-14014 August 1989 Notice of Change of Address.* Advises of Council Change of Address for Svc of Documents ML20245H8061989-08-14014 August 1989 Supplemental Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission & to Memorandum & Order of 890807.* Requests Further Extension of Time in Which to Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20245H5991989-08-11011 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Terminating Proceeding).* Dismisses Graterford Inmates Contention Re Adequacy of Training for Drivers Responsible for Evacuating Graterford & Terminates Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890814 ML20245H7341989-08-10010 August 1989 Motion by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Set Schedule for Discovery & Hearing & Request for Expedited Answer to This Motion.* Divergence in Positions of Respective Parties Emphasizes Need to Conclude Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7511989-08-0909 August 1989 Reply by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Commission Should Rely on Licensee Cost Analysis in Response to Question 5 & Rc Williams Affidavit.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7161989-08-0909 August 1989 Reply by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission Dtd 890726.* Environ Benefits for Operating Unit 2 Outweigh Small Risk of Severe Accident ML20245F7341989-08-0909 August 1989 NRC Staff Response to Commission Memorandum & Order of 890807.* Advises That NRC Will Provide Comments on Limerick Ecology Action 890814 Filing Prior to Commission Meeting Scheduled for 890817.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7291989-08-0808 August 1989 Affidavit.* Discusses Costs Incurred While Plant Inoperable. Allowance for Funds Used During Const,Security,Maint & Operational Costs Considered Proper for Calculating Costs for Delay ML20248D9241989-08-0707 August 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Extends Limerick Ecology Action Response Deadline to 890814 to Respond to Five Questions Re Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890807 ML20248D7871989-08-0303 August 1989 Correction for NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Forwards Corrected Page 5 to NRC Response to Questions Filed on 890802,deleting Phrase by Nearly Factor 2.5 in Next to Last Line.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D7111989-08-0202 August 1989 Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission Dtd 890726.* Commission Order Fails to Provide Intervenor Adequate Time for Response & Should Therefore Be Revoked.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D5391989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit of MT Masnik.* Advises That Author Prepared Response to Question 3 ML20248D5671989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit of SE Feld.* Advises That Author Prepared Response to Question 5.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D6451989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit.* Advises That Author Read Responses to Request for Comments by NRC & Knows Contents.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D4721989-08-0202 August 1989 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Provides Info for Use in Commission Effectiveness Review of Plant Full Power Operation,Per Commission 890726 Memorandum & Order. Supporting Affidavits Encl ML20248D4971989-08-0202 August 1989 Joint Affidavit of Gy Suh & CS Hinson.* Advises That Authors Prepared Responses to Questions 1 & 4 ML20248D5311989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit of Rj Barrett.* Advises That Author Prepared Response to Question 2 ML20248D5981989-08-0202 August 1989 Response by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Commission Request for Comments by Memorandum & Order Dtd 890726.* Licensee Requests Commission Issue Full Power OL for Unit 2 Conditioned Upon Outcome of Pending Litigation ML20245J1321989-07-27027 July 1989 Transcript of 890727 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Facility Severe Accident Mitigation Issues.Pp 1-130.Supporting Info Encl ML20247N3261989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of 890726 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Rockville,Md on SECY-89-220 Re Order Requesting Info from Parties for Immediate Effectiveness Review of Full Power Authorization for Limerick Unit 2.Pp 1-4 ML20248D7331989-07-24024 July 1989 Second Rept of Parties & Request for Dismissal of Graterford Inmates Contention & Termination of Proceeding.* Requests Board to Enter Order to Terminate Proceeding Based on Parties Agreeing to Dismissal of Remaining Contention ML20247Q4621989-07-23023 July 1989 Response of Intervenor Rl Anthony to Answer of Philadelphia Electric Co (PECO) to Request for Hearing on PECO Application for Low Power Operation of Unit 2 & Stay of Any Operation in Keeping W/Us Circuit Court Remand Of....* ML20247B7261989-07-20020 July 1989 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Advises That H Vandermole Appointed to Advise Commission on Issues in Proceeding Re Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890720 ML20247B3821989-07-18018 July 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Orders That Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives,Per Nepa,To Be Considered Include Containment Heat Removal,Core Residue Capture & Venting.Certificate of Encl.Served on 890719 ML20247B7641989-07-13013 July 1989 Motion of Intervenor,Limerick Ecology Action Inc,To Reconsider/Stay/Suspend/Revoke Order Authorizing Issuance of Low Power OL for Limerick 2.* Consideration of Accident Mitigation Alternatives Imperative.Certificate of Svc Encl 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 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 ML20246F1011989-08-25025 August 1989 Joint Motion for Termination of Proceedings.* Board Moved to Accept Encl Settlement Agreement,Dismiss Limerick Ecology Action,Inc (Lea) Contention W/Prejudice,Dismiss Lea as Party to Proceeding & Terminate Proceeding ML20246E3431989-08-22022 August 1989 Opposition of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Motion by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Set Schedule for Discovery & Hearing.* Requests That Schedule Be Replaced W/More Reasonable Schedule,As Proposed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245H8061989-08-14014 August 1989 Supplemental Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission & to Memorandum & Order of 890807.* Requests Further Extension of Time in Which to Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20245H7341989-08-10010 August 1989 Motion by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Set Schedule for Discovery & Hearing & Request for Expedited Answer to This Motion.* Divergence in Positions of Respective Parties Emphasizes Need to Conclude Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7511989-08-0909 August 1989 Reply by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Commission Should Rely on Licensee Cost Analysis in Response to Question 5 & Rc Williams Affidavit.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7161989-08-0909 August 1989 Reply by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission Dtd 890726.* Environ Benefits for Operating Unit 2 Outweigh Small Risk of Severe Accident ML20248D5981989-08-0202 August 1989 Response by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Commission Request for Comments by Memorandum & Order Dtd 890726.* Licensee Requests Commission Issue Full Power OL for Unit 2 Conditioned Upon Outcome of Pending Litigation ML20248D7111989-08-0202 August 1989 Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission Dtd 890726.* Commission Order Fails to Provide Intervenor Adequate Time for Response & Should Therefore Be Revoked.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q4621989-07-23023 July 1989 Response of Intervenor Rl Anthony to Answer of Philadelphia Electric Co (PECO) to Request for Hearing on PECO Application for Low Power Operation of Unit 2 & Stay of Any Operation in Keeping W/Us Circuit Court Remand Of....* ML20247B7641989-07-13013 July 1989 Motion of Intervenor,Limerick Ecology Action Inc,To Reconsider/Stay/Suspend/Revoke Order Authorizing Issuance of Low Power OL for Limerick 2.* Consideration of Accident Mitigation Alternatives Imperative.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246P4951989-07-0303 July 1989 Licensee Memorandum Re Proposed Design Mitigation Alternatives for Which Agreement Among Parties Could Not Be Reached.* Only Specific Alternatives Being Considered by Licensee & Should Be Given Attention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246P3321989-07-0303 July 1989 NRC Staff Memorandum Supporting Staff Position Re Alternatives to Be Litigated.* Board Should Reject Limerick Ecology Action Suggested Items for Litigation Considered Outside of Scope of Remand.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246N9971989-06-30030 June 1989 Memorandum of Limerick Ecology Action,Inc,Per Prehearing Conference Order of ASLB of 890609.* Proposed Alternatives for Severe Accident Mitigation within Scope of Proceeding on Remand.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20245D2691989-06-21021 June 1989 Applicant Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Clarification Or,Alternatively,For Exemption.* Commission Should Determine That NRC Fully Authorized to Issue OL for Facility & Be Directed,Per 10CFR51.6.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245A5981989-06-15015 June 1989 Opposition of Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Applicant Motion for Clarification of Commission Delegation of Authority & for Issuance of Ol,Or Alternatively,For Exemption from Procedural....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20245A5811989-06-15015 June 1989 Opposition of Commonwealth of PA to Motion of Philadelphia Electric Co for Clarification of Commission Delegation of Authority & for Issuance of OL & Opposition to Motion for Exemption.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20248B7471989-06-0505 June 1989 Applicant Motion for Clarification of Commission Delegation of Authority & for Issuance of Ol,Or,Alternatively,For Exemption from Procedural Requirement That License for Limerick Unit 2 Cannot Issue Until Contention Remanded....* ML20151T6901988-04-25025 April 1988 Response of Intervenor Rl Anthony to PECO 880331 Response & NRC Staff 880404.* Denial of Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition & Application for License Amend Urged ML20150F8721988-03-31031 March 1988 Licensee Response to Order of 880317 Requesting Clarifying Info.* Clarifying Info Needed to Decide Parties Submissions on Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition ML20149K9821988-02-18018 February 1988 Response of NRC Staff in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* NRC Agrees W/Licensee Motion Because No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Litigated. Consolidated Contention & Proceeding Should Be Dismissed ML20196D6751988-02-0909 February 1988 Response in Opposition to Licensee Request for Summary of Disposition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol Opposition to Licensee Application for Amend to License NPF-39 & Exemption to App J of 871218. * ML20235A8101988-01-0606 January 1988 Licensee Opposition to Intervenor Rl Anthony Request for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Intervenor Request Should Be Denied as Intervenor Had Adequate Opportunity to Review Responses & Pursue Addl Discovery.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235A8041988-01-0505 January 1988 Air & Water Pollution Patrol (Romano) Reaction to Licensee time-defaulted Response for Production of Documents as Ordered by NRC Administrative judges,871120.* Requests That Util Be Reprimanded for Defaulting on 871120 Order ML20238D1601987-12-20020 December 1987 Intervenor Rl Anthony Request for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Extension Requested Due to Listed Obstacles Which Have Prevented Study of Matl Provided & Matl Missing ML20236T1781987-11-23023 November 1987 Licensee Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition,Preliminary Statement.* Proposed Amend Does Not Downgrade Reporting Requirements for Iodine Spikes. Consolidated Contention & Proceeding Should Be Dismissed ML20236T1611987-11-23023 November 1987 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Forwards Util Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard,Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition & J Doering & Js Wiley Affidavits ML20236P8241987-11-12012 November 1987 Air & Water Pollution Patrol (Awpp) (Romano) Objection to Licensee Objection to Intervenor Awpp Request for Opportunity to File for Discovery & Motion for Protective Order.* Failure to Monitor Proceeding Inadvertent ML20236P8971987-11-10010 November 1987 Intervenor Rl Anthony Objection to Philadelphia Electric Co Objection to Anthony Discovery & Request for Protective Order Dtd 871030.* Only Essential Matl for Appeal of Granting License Amend Requested ML20236N8971987-11-0909 November 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Rl Anthony Discovery Requests & Licensee Objections Thereto.* ASLB Should Deny Request,But Protective Order Not Opposed.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20236N8351987-11-0909 November 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Air & Water Pollution Patrol Motion of 871027 Concerning Summary Disposition & Discovery & Licensees Objections Thereto.* Motion Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236L7471987-11-0202 November 1987 Licensee Objection to Intervenor Air & Water Pollution Patrol Request for Opportunity to File for Discovery & Motion for Protective Order.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236H3911987-10-30030 October 1987 Licensee Objection to Intervenor Anthony Request for Discovery & Motion for Protective Order.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236H4091987-10-27027 October 1987 Memorandum & Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference;Ruling on Contentions).* Motion for Board to Summarily Dispose Util Request Instant Amend & for Exercise to Discovery ML20236H3401987-10-25025 October 1987 Intervenor Rl Anthony Response to 871009 Memorandum & Order.* Author Has No Further Requests for Info in Addition to Items Recorded in .Util Should Provide Listed Records ML20236R7731987-08-26026 August 1987 Suppl to Petitioner Response of 870702 to Board Notice of Hearing & Order of 870729.* Petitioner Lists Contentions Opposing Granting of License Amend to Tech Specs for Plant Re Matter of Radioactive Iodine Spikes ML20237G9731987-08-21021 August 1987 Air & Water Pollution Patrol Suppl to Opposition to Radioactive Iodine Amend for License NPF-39.* Concerns Expressed Re Unusual Sensitivity of Thyroid to Iodine. Licensee Does Not Merit Amend,Based on Util Past Conduct ML20235M1751987-07-13013 July 1987 Staff Reply to Licensee Answers to Petitioner Requests for Hearing & Motions to Intervene (Licensee Second Argument).* Air & Water Pollution Patrol & R Anthony Failed to Meet Stds for Intervention in Amend Proceedings.Aslb Denies Petition ML20235G5851987-07-0505 July 1987 Awpp (Romano) Answers Licensee Argument II as Per Order of 870522 Re Representational Standing.* Urges Licensee to Show Cause Why Cable Pulling Necessitates Greater Air Leakage from Reactor Openings ML20235J0491987-07-0202 July 1987 Response by Intervenor Rl Anthony to Board Order of 870622.* Licensee Opposed to License Amend & Request Hearing to Form Basis for Board to Deny Request.Reduction of Control Over Iodine Spikes & Levels Is Threat to Health of Public ML20215J7661987-06-16016 June 1987 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing & Leave to Intervene by Air & Water Pollution Patrol.* Board Should Reject Licensee First Argument & Anthony Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D3641987-06-16016 June 1987 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing & Leave to Intervene by Air & Water Pollution Patrol.* ASLB Should Reject Licensee First Argument & Anthony Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20215D9491987-06-0808 June 1987 Intervenor Rl Anthony Response to ASLB Order of 870522.* Licensee Position Mistaken Both in Relation to Correctness of Petition to Intervene & as to Intent of Citizen Participation Specified in NEPA & Aea.Served on 870616 ML20214W5531987-06-0202 June 1987 Response Opposing Util Request for Legal Loopholes to Prevent Groups w/long-term Commitment to Insure Licensee Does Better Job Abiding Rules Re Public Safety ML20214G6271987-05-19019 May 1987 Commonwealth of PA Opposition to Graterford Inmates Petition for Review of ALAB-863.* Graterford Inmates Failed to Prove That Aslab Decision Erroneous W/Respect to Important Question of Fact,Policy or Law.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214A9491987-05-18018 May 1987 NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Petition for Review of Inmates of State Correctional Inst at Graterford.* Inmates Failed to Establish That Issues Raised Re ALAB-863 Warrant Review.Commission Should Deny Review.W/Certificate of Svc ML20210C1011987-05-0404 May 1987 Petition for Review.* Review of Aslab 870417 Decision ALAB-836 Requested to Determine If Reasonable Assurances Given That Sufficient Manpower Will Be Mobilized in Event of Evacuation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212K5141987-01-23023 January 1987 Response of NRC Staff in Opposition to Graterford Inmates Appeal of Licensing Board Suppl to Fourth Partial Initial Decision.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207P9441987-01-12012 January 1987 Commonwealth of PA Brief in Opposition to Appeal by Graterford Inmates of Suppl to Fourth Partial Initial Decision:Preliminary Statement.* W/Certificate of Svc 1993-10-22
[Table view] |
Text
-
1
,r *
's l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ 04;8) 0
.- I' A.If ',7 g$ j BEFORE THE COMMISSION jp s
7/'
sd I In the Matter of )
)
.f[lh Docket Nos. 50-352 i
. PIIILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) L
) 50-353' (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
l NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO ANTIIONY/ FOE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-836 AND FOR A STAY Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff f .
June 9, 1986 0606110346 860609 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR g50} l
- x
/'- h' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'd' '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .f.;
BEFORE THE COMMISSION '
j In the Matter of ) s
) ' w_.
PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
L NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO ANTIIONY/ FOE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-836 AND FOR A STAY Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff June 9,1986
l
,~.,
b s D
4 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .- o$0 :,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P -
r
% $ ;l BEFORE THE COMMISSION ,
In the Matter of )
t 19
)
PHILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
NIic STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO ANTIIONY/ FOE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-83G AND FOR A STAY I. INTRODUCTION On May 23, 1986, Robert L. Anthony / Friends of the Earth in the Delauure Valley (Anthony / FOE) filed a petition pursuant to 10 C . F . R .
S 2.78G requesting that the Commission take review of ALAB-836 II and stay operation of the Limerick facility pending a decision on remand of the issues that Anthony / FOE allege the Appeal Board decided erroneous-ly. In ALAB-836, the Appeal Board decided all appeals from the Licens-ing Board's Third Partial Initial Decision S in favor of the Licensee except for the issue of the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate students in two school districts. In addition, the Appeal Board imp.osed a license condition requiring the verification of the establishment of additional traffic control measures in the area of Route 100 and the Downingtown interchange of the Pennsylvania Turn-
-1/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-836, 23 NRC (May 7,1986).
il Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219 (1985).
pike. Anthony / FOE assert that the Appeal Board erred in affirming LDP-85-14 to the extent that it found that the Valley Forge Park / King of Prussia area and the Marsh Creek State Park /Exton area need not be in-cluded in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ).
For the reasons discussed below, the NRC staff opposes Anthony / FOE's petition and urges that it be denied.
- 11. BACKGROUND Anthony / FOE's petition for review relates to their Contention 1, which was combined for litigation with Limerick Ecology Action's (LEA)
Contention 24. The contention reads as follows:
There is no assurance that plans for evacuation of the ten milo radius will not be impeded by traffic congestion in the vicinity of Marsh Creek State Park, Exton area (involving Route 100) and Valley Forge Park, King of Prussia area.
These areas should either be included in the Emergency Plan-ning Zone or adequate plans for traffic control and direction should be made to avoid adverse effects on EPZ evacuation.
In ALAB-836, the Appeal Board noted that the Licensing Board in LBP-85-14 had provided for additional traffic controls in the Valley Forge / King of Prussia area in the form of a license condition requiring the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to verify plans to im-plement such traffic controls before authorizing operation of the Limerick plant above 5 percent power. ALAB-836 at 19, 17. The Appeal Board further noted that the Staff had subsequently informed the Licensing Board that 17 additional control points had been designated. Id. Thus, the Appeal Board concluded that the contention had been satisfied as it related to the Valley Forge Park / King of Prussia area. ALAB-836 at 17.
Ilowever, the Appeal Board agreed with LEA and Anthony / FOE that the
testimony of the Staff's witness , Dr. Urbanik, established a need for more traffic controls in the Route 100 corridor near Marsh Creek State Park and Exton. The Appeal Board, therefore, directed the Licensee to establish traffic control measures in the area of Route 100 and the Downingtown interchange of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in its emergency plans with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to verify the com-pletion of the action. ALAD-836 at 24-26. Because the necessity for including park areas in the EPZ was offered as an alternative to e.ddition-al traffic controls, the Appeal Board held that the contention had been satisfied by the license condition and that, therefore, LEA and Anthony / FOE's arguments regarding the inclusion of the parks within the EPZ were moot. ALAU-836 at 27.
The Appeal Board did not limit its consideration of the Licensing Board's treatment of LEA Contention 24/ FOE Contention 1 to the traffic control alternative; rather, it addressed at length the issue of the scope of the EPZ, noting that the Commission's regulations (10 CFR S 50.47(c)(2)) provide that, generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and that the Limerick EPZ had been defined by state and local planning officials in accordance with S 50.47(c)(2). ALAB-836 at 26-27. The Ap-peal Board noted that LEA / FOE had not shown that the experts erred in defining the EPZ or what would have been accomplished by inclusion of the parks. ALAB-836 at 27-28.
III. DISCUSSION ,
Although the Commission has the discretion to review a decision of its subordinate boards, a petition for Commission review "will not j
ordinarily be granted" unless important environmental, safety, procedur-al, common defense, antitrust or public policy issues are involved.
10 C.F.R. S 2.786(b)(4). No such issues at a raised in Anthony / FOE's petition .
A. Anthony / FOE's petition Anthony / FOE's petition cites four areas in which they assert the Appeal Board erred: (1) in failing to find that the King of Prussia / Valley Forge Park and Marsh Creek Park /Exton areas should be included in the EPZ; (2) in failing to reverse the Licensing Board on the issue of the evacuation time estimate (ETE), which Anthony / FOE assert should include the effect of through traffic; (3) in sustaining the Licens-ing Board's consolidation of Anthony / FOE's presentation with that of LEA and imposition of time limits on cross-examination; and (4) in delegating the issue of traffic control points to the Staff and thus denying interve-nors the opportunity to challenge the Staff's resolution of the matter.
Tbc Staff does not believe that any of Anthony / FOE's allegations of Ap-peal Board error merit Commission review.
- 1. The Appeal Board correctly decided that imposition of a license condition requiring traffic control points satisfied the contention and mooted the alternative concern.
Contention LEA 24/ FOE 1 is stated in the alternative, i.e., either the EPZ should be expanded to include certain park areas or adequate planning for additional traffic control and direction should be undertaken.
llaving prevailed on the necessity for further traffic control and direc-tion , Anthony / FOE now seek a Commission ruling that the Appeal Board erred in not reversing the Licensing Board's conclusion that the park areas in contention need not be included in the EPZ.
The position that Anthony / FOE now argue to the Commission is de-void of both merit and logic. The Appeal Board's ruling that Anthony /
FO E's arguments regarding inclusion of park areas in the EPZ are moot is clearly correct. Moreover, the Appeal Board did not limit its consideration of the contention to the alternative that was satisfied.
Rather, the Appeal Board discussed the Commission's regulations in 10 CFli 5 50.47(c)(2) and concluded that LEA / FOE had not shown that the experts had erred in defining the EPZ or what would have been ac-complished by inclusion of the park areas in contention. ALAB-836 at
- 'i-2 8. See discussion supra at 2-4. Accordingly, the Appeal Board's ruling in this regard was correct and no Commission review of this issue is required.
j 2. The Appeal Board correctly denied Anthony / FOE's attempt to l
raise for the first time on appeal the matter of through traffic.
Anthony / FOE state that because the Staff's witness, Dr. Urbanik, mentioned through traffic in his testimony, the Appeal Board was in error in refusing to allow Anthony / FOE to raise the matter on appeal because they had not raised it before the Licensing Board. Anthony / FOE appar-ently misunderstand the Appeal Board's statement that their argument concerning the need for control of through traffic in areas other than those specified in the contention and litigated before the Licensing Board "cannot be properly raised for the first time on appeal." ALAB-836 at 24 n.28. Dr. Urbanik's mere mention in his testimony of through traffic did not in itself raise the matter as an issue before the Licensing Board.
The Appeal Board's ruling was that an appeal,on this matter did not lie because Anthony / FOE had not raised it as an issue before the Licensing
D onrd . Thus, Anthony / FOE's argument to the Commission misses the mark and fails to establish that the Appeal Board erred on this issue.
- 3. The Appeal Board correctly sustained the Licensing Board's consolidation of LEA / FOE presentations and limitation of cross-examination Anthony / FOE allege that the Licensing Board abused the judicial process by consolidsting Anthony / FOE's presentation with that of LEA and that their complaints about the matter were not, as characterized by the Appeal Board, "g eneralized . " However, Anthony / FOE's argument to the Commission adds nothing to their complaints to the Appeal Board, in re-sponse to which the Appeal Board noted that consolidation of parties is explicitly authorized by 10 C .F . R . 2. 715a and that Anthony / FOE had made no showing that they were prejudiced by the consolidation of their presentation with that of LEA. See, ALAB-836 at 33. Anthony / FOE have failed to explain why the Commission should review the Appeal Board's treatment of this issue.
In addressing Anthony / FOE's allegation that it was error to sustain the Licensing Board's time limitation on cross-examination , the Appeal Board appropriately cited to 10 C.F.R. S 2.718, regarding a licensing board's obligation to " regulate the course of the hearing"; 10 C . F . R .
S li.743(c), regarding a licensing board's obligation to admit only evidence that is relevant , material, reliable and not unduly repetitious ; and 10 C.F.R. S 2.757(c) and (d), regarding a licensing board's responsibili-ty to prevent argumentative, repetitious or cumulative cross-examination and to impose such time limitations on arguments as it determines appro-priate. ALAB-836 at 33-34. The Appeal Board. opined that the imposition of time restrictions on witness examination is clearly among the necessary tools an NRC adjudicatory board possesses to regulate the course of a
hearing provided, of course, that such imposition does not result in prej-udice to any party. Id. This is clearly a reasonable interpretation of
. relevant Commission regulations regarding the conduct of hearings and Anthony / FOE have made no showing that the Licensing Board abused its discretion in exercising this authority.
The Appeal Board further noted that Anthony / FOE had failed to es-tablish actual prejudice by, for example, describing the outcome-determi-native testimony that was allegedly precluded by time restrictions.
ALAB-836 at 35. Anthony / FOE now at gue to the Commission that Dr. Urbanik's testimony on the relationship of through traffic on the turnpike to through traffic on the other main evacuation routes was cut off by the Licensing Board's imposition of time limits. Whatever may be the merit of Anthony / FOE's claim concerning the testimony they hoped to elicit from Dr. Urbanik - and the Staff can perceive none - it was not argued to the Appeal Board and, tnerefore, may not now be argued to the Commission. 10 C.F.R. S 2.786(4)(111),
- 4. The Appeal Board acted correctly in sustaining the Licensing Board's imposition of a license condition that left to the Staff the resolution of the matter of additional traffic points.
Anthony / FOE challenge the Appeal Board's sustaining of the Licens-ing Board's imposition of a license condition leaving to the Staff the reso-lution of the matter of additional traffic control points. However, the
. Commission has long recognized the appropriateness of such delegation if
" employed sparingly and only in clear cases". Consolidated Edison Com-pany of New York (Indian Point Station , Unit No. 2), CLI-74-23, 7 AEC 947, 952 (1974). Here, the Appeal Board Torrectly applied the Com-mission's guidance in upholding the Licensing Board's delegation to the Staff. Specifically, the Appeal Board correctly concluded that:
i
)
l l
1 In Waterford, we explained that findings in the emergen-cy planning area are essentially predictive in nature:
an emergency plan need not be final in every detail, just sufficiently developed to permit the " reasonable assur-ance" finding required by the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(1). Consequently, in some in-stances post-hearing verification by the staff of emer-
. gency planning measures is not an improper delegation or decisionmaking authority to the staff.
In Waterford, for instance, we concluded that post-hearing verification by the staff of the installation and testing of the siren warning system, completion of letters of agreement for vehicles and drivers, and certain de-tails concerning the communication system for the Emer-gency Support Organization was proper. Each of these items is essentially a detail relating to the implementation of the emergency plan, rather than a basic ingredient of the plan itself. . . . The same can be said here about the plans for greater traffic control in the Valley Forge /l ing of Prussia area. Traffic control is achieved by the stationing of Pennsylvania State Police or local law enforcement personnel at designated locations (usual-ly intersections) to restrict access to certain roads or to direct traffic more safely and expeditiously through an area. ETE at 7-1, 7-7. Thus, the Licensing Board did not err in authorizing the staff to verify the designation of additional traffic control points. ALAB-836 at 21-22 (footnotes omitted).
Anthony / FOE have not presented a basis for Commission review of this matter.
B. Anthony / FOE's stay request Anthony / FOE request that the Commission stay operation of Limerick pending the outcome of the remanded proceedings that Anthony / FOE ar-gue are necessary to assure a new and workable emergency plan.
Al-though Anthony / FOE have addressed the Commission'c criteria for stays
_g_
found in 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e) 3_/ , their showing does not support the grant of a stay.
- 1. Likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Anthony / FOE state that they have pointed to flaws in the Appeal Board and Licensing Board deci-sions that make the plans unworkable. However, for the reasons discussed above, Anthony / FOE have failed to identify any issues on which they are likely to prevail.
- 2. Whether the party will be irreparably injured absent the grant of a stay. Anthony / FOE state that they will be forced to move if Limer-ick operates, thus suffering irreparable injury. The Appeal Board in ALAB-789 b rejected this very argument, stating that an individual's decision to move away from a vicinity of a nuclear plant is necessarily a personal one. 20 NRC at 1447. Anthony / FOE's decisions about their future residence does not constitute the irreparable harm contemplated by the Commission's stay regulations.
- 3. Whether the grant of stay will harm other parties.
Anthony / FOE argue that the Licensee's shareholders should be liable for any loss of investment. They ignore the fact that Philadelphia Electric holds a Commission license entitling it 'to undertake the activities author-ized by the license unless the public health, interest or safety requires that these activities be suspended. Consumers Power Company (Midland 3/ The four factors to be considered under S 2.788(e) are: 1) whether the movant has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; 2) whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted ; 3) whether the granting of a stay will harm the other parties; and 4) where the public interest lies.
~4/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-789, 20 NRC 1443 (1984).
Plant, 1 and 2), CLI-73-38, 6 AEC 1082,1083 (1973). These rights and privileges cannot be dismissed merely by characterizing the injury that Licensee's shareholders would suffer if the stay were granted as merely
" economic . " Anthony / FOE have failed to demonstrate that other parties to this proceeding (specifically, Licensee) will not be harmed by the grant of a stay.
- 4. %here the public interest lies. Anthony / FOE argue that eco-nomic harm to ratepayers will occur if Limerick is not kept out of the rate base. Anthony / FOE have argued this point previously and the Appeal Doard has rejected it. The Appeal Board in ALAB-789 noted:
The Commission has just recently reaffirmed its long-held view that a nuclear plant's possible effect on rates, the utility's solvency, and the like is best raised before state economic regulatory agencies. Public Service Co.
of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CLI-84-6, 19 NRC 975 (1984). . . 20 NRC at 1447.
Anthony / FOE have not established that the public interest supports their efforts to disturb the decisions below.
IV. CONCLUSION As discussed above, Anthony / FOE have failed to show that ALAB-836 raises any important question of law or Commission policy. Accordingly, the Commission should deny Anthony / FOE's petition for review and re-quest for a stay of operation.
Respectfully subnitted, j W .
Ann P. Ilodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of June, 1986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO ANTIIONY/ FOE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-836 AND FOR A STAY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an aster-isk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 9th day of June,1986:
Samuel J. Chilk William C. Parler Office of the Secretary General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington , D.C. 20555* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555*
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2301 Market Street Washington , D.C. 20555* Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Jerry liarbour Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President Administrative Judge Ms. Maureen Mulligan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Limerick Ecology Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 762 Queen Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Pottstown, PA 19464
)
Mr. Frank R. Romano Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
Air and Water Pollution Patrol 1500 Municipal Services Bldg.
61 Forest Avenue 15th and JFK Blvd.
Ambler, PA 19002 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Thomas Gerusky, Director Barry M. Hartman Bureau of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 300 N. 2nd Street Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Director Associate General Counsel Pennsylvania Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Room 840 Basement, Transportation & Safety 500 C Street, S.W.
Building Washington , D.C. 20472 fiarrisburg, PA 17120 Robert L. Anthony Gene Kelly Friends of the Earth of the Senior Resident inspector Delaware Valley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 P.O. Box 47 Moylan, PA 19065 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Atomic Safety and Licensing Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Board Panel Department of Emergency Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 East Biddle Street Washington, D.C. 20555* West Chester, PA 19380 Atomic Safety and Licensing David Wersan Appeal Board Panel (8)
Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Attorney General Washington , D.C. 20555*
1425 Strawberry Square llarrisburg, PA 171:'O Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jay Gutierrez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555*
USNRC, Region 1 631 Park Avenue Angus R. Love, Esq.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Montgomery County Legal Aid 107 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401 Iw O e c)V Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staf i