|
---|
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
. .
PC.
~
9a ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER /f c.o.r.ctor,: ur. coorgo Boornwne-R.D. e1, Peach Bottom, Pa. 17563 717 548-2836 N SM 3 or. Juein sonn, rue-433 ort.noc hInu., st.t. cosiT.%%t 'asa.237m S
g 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g &
N In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island, Unit 1) --- (Suspended License Hearings)
ECNP Intervenors' Answer to the Board's Memorandum and Order of January 9,1980 By a Memorandum and Order (M & 0) dated. January 9, 1980, this Board denied the request of ECNP for a 10 day extension of time to file its revised contention on evacuation planning and emergency response. In this i' & 0, the Board ordered that the revised contention,which was an amendment to a previously, properly, and timely file <*. intervention petition (filed March 29, June 29, September 4, and October 5, 1979.), should be instead " considered as a late filing under the standards of 10 CFR 2.714 (a)(1)." ECNP herein sutxnits its response to the M & 0 as outlined in 10 CFR 2.714 (a)(1).
- 1) The ECNP revised contention could not have been filed earlier.
The good cause for the late filing of the ECNP revised contention, which was filed on January 7, 1980, as set forth in the ECNP request, is discussed
<' in the ECNP request of December 19, 1979, itself. This discussion of December 19, 1979, is hereby incorporated by reference with this filing. However, those -
reasons will be repeated here in summary fonn, for the Board's convenience.
(a) ECNP received the October 1979, version of the TMI-l Emergency Plan (TMI Plan) in November,1979. 1945 347 (b) Early in December,1979. ECNP received Amendments 6 and 7 to the TMI Plan, dated November 1979.
800211026'f
.7-,.
(c)_ At about the same time, ECNP received an undated letter from Gilbert Associates, requesting confirmation of receipt of TMI-l Restart Report Amendments 6, 7 and'8.
. 1 (d) ECNP replied to Gilbert Associates that ECNP had only g i n eceived Amendments 1, 2, 6 and 7 to the Restart Report.
. 4 (e) In a-letter dated December 17, 1979, and received
- - December 19, 1979, counsel for the Suspended Licensee
- advised the Board that I am transmitting to you under separate coveracompleteanduptodatecopy]ofthe Licensee'sEmergencyPlanfor[TM*-1,....
We observe here that counsel for the Suspended Licensee here
- clearly states I am transmitting," not that he "has transmitted" the TMI Plan.
These factors led ECNP to believe that it did not have a complete and up to date TMI Plan. In fact, ECNP had every reason to believe, on the basis of the Gilbert Associates letter, that ECNP had an incer plete Restart Report (Amendment 6 contained part of the TMI Plan). Furthermore, the December 17, 1979, letter did not mention the TMI Plan that had been served much earlier upon the parties. Instead, this letter referred to one that was clearly in the process of being transmitted as of December 17, 1979. Thus, as of the December 20, 1979, de dline for a revised contention, ECNP knew it had an incomplete Restart Report, and was told that a complete and up-to-date TMI Plan was, as of December 17, in the process of being transmitted to the Board. But ECNP had every reason to ut believe, on the basis of the above, that it did have a complete and up-to-date 3
TMI Plan. As a result, on December 20, 1979, ECNP asked this Board for a 10 day extention so that ECNP could get some assurance that its efforts at reviewing the TMI Plan would not be wasted and that its amended contention would [
be complete. Since ECNP filed its request for an extention imediately upon m v
receipt of the December 17, 1979 letter, the request for an extention was cn indeed promptly filed, and could not have been filed earlier. Furthennore, a
request filed much earlier would run the risk of being denied for being too early and thus, frivilous, premature, and unnecessary. In filings dated December 31, 1979, the Suspended licensee, and January 1, 1980, the NRC Staff both did not object to the request of ECNP for a 10 day time extention in which to file the revised contention.
- 2) There is no other means to fully protect the interests of ECNP.
ECNP submits that no other means exist whereby the interest of ECNP, its member groups and its members will be fully protected absent the participation of ECNP in the issues raised by ECNP in its amended evacuation planning and emergency response contention.
- 3) A sound record needs the full' participation of ECNP.
ECNP is attempting to be an active participant in these proceedings, so that it may assist in the development of a sound and complete record. Many of the issues raised in ECNP's revised contention have not been fully addressed by the other parties' contentions. Therefore, it is crucial that ECNP's revised contention be accepted notwithstanding the fact that the revised contention was not filed on time, in order to assist in developing a sound and complete record.
We note, however, the extent of ECNP's participation in this proceeding has already been severely compromised by actions of other parties to this and other proceedings in which ECNP is a lawful participant -- actions which are beyond the control of ECNP and which have been taken by these other parties, apparently, solely for the purpose of thwarting needed public participation and for the related purpose of precluding an adequate ventilation of important health and safety issues. For example, as a result of the very limited discovery offered by the suspended licensee in this proceeding, ECNP has been functionally denied any discovery at all from the Suspended Licenseee. ECNP simply does not have the resources nor the person-power to spend days upon end at a site 100 miles from its headquarters and the location of its legal representatives. Nor does ECNP have the financial resources to buy even the most necessary documents from 1945 349
the suspended licensee. For the same reasons, ECNP has been denied acass even to the transcripts of this proceeding. Similarly, discovery upon the NRC Staff has been only slightly more successful. ECNP accepted on good faith the word of the NRC Staff counsel that the Staff would fully cooperate in fulfilling infomal discovery requests for documents, by forwarding actual copies of documents.
ECNP gave Staff Counsel Mulkey two lists of requested materials on November 14, 1979, with delivery promised in two or three weeks. These lists each contained about a dozen items. About January 18, 1980, ECNP received the first seven documents from the Staff with no indication as to when the rest would arrive.
Thus, ECNP has already been denied the access to these materials necessary for the preparation and presentation of its case. ECNP has made additional discovery requests of the Staff. However, the described experiences suggest that any further discovery requests upon the Staff may not be honored in time to be of any use, if the requests are honored at all. Thus, the ability of ECNP to parti-cipate fully and effectively in these proceedings has already been severely 1 mited by the suspended licensee and by the NRC Staff. S
- 4) No other parties have raised the issues that ECNP has.
tn In its revised contention, ECNP raises issues which ECNP believes have e cn
~
not been adequately raised by other parties to this proceeding.
- 5) The proceeding will not be delayed but the issues will be broadened.
Since no party objected to the 10 day extention requested by ECNP, the proceeding has not been delayed by the 10 day request of ECNP. This is especially true since the revised contention has already been timely served (Jan. 7,1980) in the 10 day period for which an extention was requested and no party has been prejudiced.
The issue of the delay of the proceedings and the question as to the merit of granting the 10 day extension are therefore moot. Furthermore, since the contention in question is merely a revision of earlier, timely filed ECNP contentions, all parties had ample notice of the issues raised in the revised contention and no prejudice or delay occured or could have occurred merely because the final
formulations of the revised contention could not be filed on time.
The granting of the 10 day extension requested will also broade, the issues by assisting in the development of a more complete record, as described in Sec. 2, 3 and 4 above.
ECNP agrees emphatically with the te-ire.of the Board to get on to the more substantive issues of this proceeding (M & 0, p. 3). ECNP has been struggling to do so in this and other ongoing proceedings to;which ECNP is a' party, but its goo'd faith efforts seem to be largely in vain. There seems to be no end to the filings which must be responded to in order to simply remain in any given pro-ceeding. The sheer number of these peripheral filings has virtually paralyzed ECNP during the past five months, thus preventing ECNP from prepvag for any upcoming proceeding, including the Susquehanna proceeding, the two remanded TMI-2 proceedings (which were injected into the TMI-1 restart time period over the objections of the ECNP participants) and this proceeding. As a result, ECNP has been deprived of the right to prepare interrogatories for the Staff and the Sus-pended Licensee, but har had to answer Staff interrogatories, and on January 21, 1980, received the first set of interrogatories from the Suspended Licensee. These last interrogatories simply cannot be addressed in any way until after the remanded TMI-2 hearings on February 25 and 26, 1980 have been completed. We note that in that proceeding, the ECNP participants have been totally precluded from the preparation of their testimony by the procedural requirements of this and the Susquehanna proceedings.
This filing, unfortunately, contributes further to the general preparational
. paralysis of ECNP. It was required in' spite of the mootness of the issue of the 10 day extension. In addition, the requiremer.t that this filing be made has caused an' extraneous issue to be introduced into the proceeding which would othentise not been present. That issue is whether or not ECNP, by this filing, has or has not complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1). Had the Board granted the 10 day extension requested by ECNP, this issue would have been abs f
the proceedings and thus would not have the potential to absorb ex,t,ra future time comittments for the rest of this proceeding. Since no party objected to the extention, the granting of the request would have oresented no arguable or appealable issue. Now, however, the potential for arguable and appealable issue has been injected into the proceeding over a moot issue.
ECNP's request for additional time neither was untimely or unorthodox.
For example, in a filing dated January 11, 1980, counsel for Newbr.rry Township TMI Steering Committee (TMI Comittee) describes confusion not unlike that ECNP faced regarding the wholeness of the Suspended Licensee's TMI-1 Plan. In that filing, counsel for the TMI Comittee describes how he obtair.ed from the Board Chairman a 5 day extention on December 18, 1980, the very day counsel perceived the revised contentions were due. On January 7,1980, counsel for U.C.S. made a request for additional time two days after a deadline. In the light of these actions by practicing members of the bar, ECNP submits that its request for additional time was timely, reasonable, and was not unorthodox at all.
~
As required in the M & 0 of January 9, 1980 ECNP has discussed the items specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1). However, ECNP moves that this Board grant the original request of ECNP for the additional 10 days. The granting of this motion would have the purpose of deleting from this proceeding the question of whether of not the 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) requirements have been met. This issue for potential argument and appeal adds no substantive issue to the proceeding, since no party objected to the 10 day request in the first place, but may consume unnecessary time and effort in the future. Since the revised contention was served in the time requested, there is nothing to be gained by possible future g argument over a question rfow moot.
Respectfully submitted, 4
, Os h.n/jsy:l.0)
N January 24, 1980 Chauncey Kepford '
Representative of Intervenors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,
I hereby certify that copies of ECNP INTERVENORS' ANSWER TO THE BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF JANUARY 9, 1980 have been served on the following by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid, on this 2.5'_ day of January, 1980:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secret ary
,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coemission U.S. Pitclear 9egulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jord an James A . Tourtellotte, Esq.
881 W. Outer Drive Office of Executive Legal Director Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D .C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
5000 Hermitago Drive Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
_k "i
/fNU/ ,
f '/ '
. . c, 0~I .
/, ;.
r.
i g CCOE uwr~
,\
p14 '6 0 'C > -
e., w an ,
'!p ' *
-QQ,55'N 1r s tr:"A ;. .
' . ,: 9-1945 353
4 k u r
9 4
% 0, " s , 'l .* s? ?,,
p r~,,,
cp" Os /
E .;
UJ .
44 wP,,
,.~*Q o
'N s
4 35
~.
' (