|
---|
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:ORDERS
MONTHYEARML20206T7211999-02-11011 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20153D1881988-08-25025 August 1988 Memorandum & Order (Rulings on Motions for Summary Disposition).* Grants Licensee Motion Re Contentions 1,3 in part,4b in part,4c,4d,6 & 8 & Contentions 2,3 in part,4b in Part & 5d Shall Be Litigated.Served on 880829 ML20195D1151988-06-17017 June 1988 Order (Granting Staff & Joint Intervenor Requests for Time Extensions).* Requests for Extension of Time to Respond & to File Response to Util 880509 Motion for Summary Disposition to 880622,granted.Served on 880617 ML20151X3051988-04-28028 April 1988 Memorandum & order.CLI-88-02.* Commission Decided to Lift Facility Restart Condition as Applies to All Except Jr Floyd & to Revise Facility Restart Condition No.1 in CLI-85-02. Served on 880429 ML20151T4281988-04-25025 April 1988 Order (Directing Licensee Compliance).* Licensee Wasted ASLBP in Seeking to Elude Obvious Thrust & Sense of 880128 & 0401 Orders & 880105 Memorandum & Order.Design Specs Must Be Made Available by Licensee.Served on 880426 ML20148S8251988-04-15015 April 1988 Memorandum & Order (Denying in Part Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion Served on 880330;scheduling Summary Disposition).* Served on 880415 ML20149K9521988-02-19019 February 1988 Memorandum & Order.* Order CLI-88-01 Directing Aslab to Consider Issue of C Husted Job Performance at Util in Rendering Decision in Retroactively Expanding Proceeding. Served on 880219 ML20149H6681988-02-17017 February 1988 Memorandum & Order (Partially Granting Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension).* Board Will Notify Licensee & Staff When Respective Motions for Summary Disposition Should Be Filed.Served on 880218 ML20196D6821988-02-16016 February 1988 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Act to Review ALAB-881,dtd 871231,extended Until 880219.Served on 880216 ML20149D8701988-02-0808 February 1988 Order.* Extends Time within Which Commission May Act to Review ALAB-881,dtd 871231,until 880216.Served on 880208 ML20148Q9891988-01-28028 January 1988 Order (Denying Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order).* Licensee 880119 Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order Denied.Served on 880129 ML20235A8571988-01-0505 January 1988 Memorandum & Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference;Ruling on Contentions;Scheduling).* Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Admitted as Party & Commonwealth of PA Admitted as Interested State.Served on 880106 ML20234B9981987-12-31031 December 1987 Memorandum & Order.* Certifies to Commission Question of Whether to Retroactively Expand Jurisdiction of Proceeding to Encompass Issue Introduced by Trial Judge Re Husted Job Performance.Served on 880104 ML20236P8461987-11-12012 November 1987 Memorandum & Order (Approving Settlement Agreement & Terminating Proceeding).* Proceeding Terminated,Per Approval of Encl 871105 Agreement Between NRC & Gpu,Settling Enforcement Action EA-84-137.Served on 871116 ML20236L8481987-11-0303 November 1987 Order (Scheduling Special Prehearing Conference).* Conference Held in Order to Permit Identification of Key Issues in Proceeding & to Consider Intervention Petitions to Determine Parties to Proceeding.Served on 871105 ML20235R4951987-10-0505 October 1987 Order Directing Settlement Negotiations.* Allegation That Util Discriminated Against R Parks in 1983 in Violation of Section 210 of Energy Reorganization Pact.Served on 871005 ML20235K8331987-10-0101 October 1987 Memorandum & Order (Re Interest of Petitioners).* Order Commonwealth of PA Petition to Participate as Interested State in Proceeding Must Await Final Determination as to Whether Hearing Shall Be Held.Served on 871002 ML20235B4581987-09-18018 September 1987 Order (Granting Time Extension to Staff).* Staff 870918 Motion Requesting Extension of Time to 870925 to Respond to Petitions for Hearing & to Intervene Filed by TMI Alert,Inc & Susquehanna Valley Alliance Granted.Served on 870921 ML20238E4841987-09-0303 September 1987 Memorandum & Order (Setting Prehearing Conference).* Counsel for Parties Directed to Appear at 870930 Prehearing Conference in Bethesda,Md to Discuss Listed Matters.Served on 870908 ML20235S5631987-09-0303 September 1987 Memorandum & Order Directing Parties to Appear at Prehearing Conference on 870930 at Commissions Hearing Room in Bethesda,Md.Agenda for Conference Will Include Consideration of All Pending Motions,Disputes & Discovery Matters ML20237J9831987-08-12012 August 1987 Order Re Disclosure & Protection of Certain Documents.* Seeks Addl Relief by Disclosure of Documents Re Methodology of Internal Audit Group in Conducting Confidential Investigations.Served on 870813 ML20237K1221987-08-11011 August 1987 Order.* Reconfirms 870909 Oral Argument in Bethesda,Md Re Appeal of C Husted from 870402 Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge.Served on 870812 ML20236E7161987-07-28028 July 1987 Order Re Disclosure & Protection of Certain Commission Documents.* Provision of Listed Documents to General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp Ordered.Unexecuted Affidavit of Nondisclosure Encl ML20235J0881987-07-10010 July 1987 Memorandum & Order (Denying Aamodts Motion for Reconsideration).* Denies Aamodts Petition to Reconsider Inquiry Into TMI-2 Leak Rate Data Falsification.Served on 870713 ML20216D4531987-06-23023 June 1987 Order (Re Corrections or Mods to Recommended Decision).* Order Correcting or Modifying ASLB 870521 Recommended Decision Re Inquiry Into Plant Leak Rate Data Falsification. Served on 870624 ML20216D2351987-06-22022 June 1987 Memorandum & Order Ruling on Dept of Labor Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Order & Appeal Overruling Motion to Quash Subpoena to D Feinberg.Served on 870623 ML20215J8511987-06-19019 June 1987 Memorandum on Staff 870612 Motion to Compel Production of Documents.* Advises That Staff Will Renew Motion to Compel Re Bechtel Directive 2-1,if Addl Info Still Needed After Deposition of Hoffmann.Motion Suspended.Served on 870622 ML20214N3401987-05-21021 May 1987 Order.* Alters Sua Sponte Schedule for Filing Briefs in Response to C Husted 870518 Brief in Support of Appeal from ASLB 870402 Initial Decision.Briefs Supporting & Opposing Appeal Due 870630 & 0803,respectively.Served on 870522 ML20214G6211987-05-20020 May 1987 Memorandum & Order.* TMI Alert,Inc Appeal of Administrative Law Judge 870402 Initial Decision in Special Proceeding Involving C Husted Dismissal Due to Untimely Appeal W/O Good Cause.Served on 870520 ML20213G0411987-05-0808 May 1987 Order.* Order Directing Staff to Envoke & Exercise Rights Under MOU Between NRC & Dept of Labor to Allow Deposition of D Feinberg by Gpu.Related Correspondence ML20215K9661987-05-0505 May 1987 Order.* Directs TMI Alert to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Untimeliness.Served on 870506 ML20206D3171987-04-0707 April 1987 Notice of Correction (Initial Decision Number).* Notice That Initial Decision LBP-87-11,issued on 870402,in Proceeding Is Incorrect.Correct Number Is Initial Decision ALJ-87-3.Served on 870408 ML20212D0681987-02-27027 February 1987 Memorandum & Order (Granting Licensee Motion for Termination of Proceedings).* Grants Licensee 870210 Motion for Termination of Proceedings.Licensee Did Not Demand Hearing on Denial of Tech Spec Change Request 148.Served on 870303 ML20211A1541987-02-13013 February 1987 Order (Granting in Part Aamodt Request for Extension of Time).* Parties May Serve Responses to 870202 Order on Aamodts by 870217 or Mail Copies of Responses After Receipt of Aamodts Response.Served on 870217 ML20209H7231987-02-0202 February 1987 Request & Order (Concerning Briefing on Certain Issues in Proceeding).* Requests Comments & Briefing on Parts V & VI of Numerous Employees 870123 Memorandum of Law. Listed Concerns Should Be Addressed.Served on 870203 ML20207Q3401987-01-21021 January 1987 Order (Ruling on Aamodt Motion for Extension of Time).* Numerous Employees & Aamodts Shall File Proposed Findings by 870202.Parties Wishing to File Reply Findings Shall Do So by 870217.Served on 870123 ML20214Q6521986-12-0101 December 1986 Order Denying Numerous Employees Motion to Dismiss Aamodts as Parties to Proceeding & Extending Time Until 870116 for Aamodts to File Proposed Findings on Individual Responsibility Issues.Served on 861202 ML20214C8281986-11-18018 November 1986 Order Including Jp Moore to Wa Rockwell in Record as Exhibit 27.Served on 861019 ML20214A5121986-11-14014 November 1986 Order Confirming Times for Filing of Proposed Findings of Fact & Responding to Motion to Dismiss.Proposed Findings of All Parties Due on 870109 & Those of Numerous Employees on 870123 or 0209.Served on 861117 ML20214K6601986-08-19019 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Terminating Proceeding Re Hearing Concerning E Wallace & Removing Notification Requirement Per 860515 Advisory Opinion & Notice of Hearing.Served on 860820 ML20205F6361986-08-13013 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Following 860730 Prehearing Conference in Bethesda,Md.Discovery,Including Answers to Discovery Request,Should Be Completed by 870201.Served on 860814 ML20204J7131986-08-0707 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Approving Burns Witness Access Proposal Provided Proposal Includes Assurance of Access for All Parties & Witness Provides Description of Subj Areas to Be Discussed in Advance of Interview.Served on 860808 ML20203K0281986-08-0404 August 1986 Order Denying Aamodts 850801 Petition for Award of Atty Fees & Costs Under Equal Access to Justice Act for Participation in Restart Proceeding.Nrc Lacks Source of Funds to Pay Award.Served on 860804 ML20203K1641986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Re Rulings on Pending Matters Concerning Aamodt 860612 Response to NRR Rept,Ofc of Investigations Rept & Motion for Summary Disposition.Board Takes Exception to Employees Statements.Served on 860804 1999-02-11
[Table view] |
Text
, _----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _
f80
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 fPR -4 P12 :05 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges: ?..
uw Thomas S. Moore, Chairman April 4, 1989 Christine N. Kohl (ALAB-914)
Howard A. Wilber
) KERVED APR 04 l989 In the Matter of )
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Disposal of Accident-
) Generated Water)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit 2) )
)
Frances Skolnick, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, for the Joint interveners Three Mile Island Alert and Susquehanna Valley Alliance.
Thomas A. Baxter, Ernest L. Blake, Jr., David R. Lewis, and Maurice A. Ross, Washington, D.C., for the applicant General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation.
Stephen H. Lewis a nd "11 - P. Ocdh::.d for the .
Nuclear Regulai y Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
, On February 2, 1989, the Licensing Board issued an initial decision authorizing an operating license amendment for the now shut down Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI),
facility owned by the applicant, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation.1 The amendment would dele _te certain technical specifications from the license that currently 1
LDP-89-7, 29 NRC .
g412OOJ6890404 g ADOCK 050003po gg k
PDR
2 !
prohibit the disposal of accident-generated water (AGW) at the plant. The joint interveners, Susquehanna Valley Alliance and Three Mile Island Alert, have filed an appeal from the Licensing Board's decision and now seek a stay of the license amendment authorization. The applicant and the NRC staff oppose the interveners' stay request. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the stay.
1 1. By way of background, the 1979 accident at TMI and subsequent cleanup generated some 2.3 million gallons of radioactively contaminated water. That water already has been processed through specially designed demineralized systems to reduce its radioactivity content and currently is stored in various locations in the plant.
In 1981, when the staff issued its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the TMI cleanup, the staff addressed, as best it could at the time, the impacts of the future disposal of the AGW, and the Commission directed that any proposals for such disposal be referred to it for further urtion.3 Thereafter, in 1986, the applicant submitted a plan to dispose of the AGW by forced evaporation followed by vaporization and atmospheric See 52 Fed. Reg. 28,626 (1987) (notice of opportunity for hearing on the requested license amendment).
46 Fed. Reg. 24,764 (1981).
l 3
]
release over a period of 15-24 months. The applicant's proposal would also collect the radioactive waste solids removed during evaporation and prepare them for shipment to an appropriate low-level waste facility.4 l The staff issued a draft supplement to the PEIS assessing the environmental consequences of the applicant's proposal and a number of alternatives. After a public comment period, the staff prepared a final supplement in which it concluded that the applicant's proposal, as well as eight alternatives, could be implemented without significant environmental impacts. In response to the applicant's l
license amendment application, the Commission then issued a l
hearing notice and this license amendment proceeding
- l commenced.5 The Licensing Board granted the applicant's motion for summary disposition on most of the interveners' admitted contentions.6 After a hearing on the remaining safety and environmental issues, the Licensing Board copcluded in a lengthy, detailed decision that the license amendment should be granted. Specifically, the Board found that the l 4 See PEIS, Supplement No. 2, NUREG-0683 (June 1987),
at 3.3. . ,
5 See 52 Fed. Reg. at 28,626-27.
LBP-88-23, 28 NRC 178 (1988).
s 4 !
applicant's proposal to dispose of the AGW was environmentally acceptable and that the disposal plan would have " extremely small radiation exposure consequences, both to workers and the general public."7 In this regard, the Board determined that the worst care dose to the maximally exposed individual is on the order of a single day of natural background radiation, and is received over a one to two year period. The additional dose to the maximally exposed individual from evaporation -
is far below the normal environmental dose va'riability, and the additional dose to the average off-site individual is thousands of times smaller.
Another way of considering these same data is {
that the dose to the hypothetical individual from j evaporation of the AGW would be less than ten (
percent of an additional dose a person would receive from living in a brick building ea,ch year, and is comparable to the whole body dose an average individual in the general population receives from watching color television each year.
The dose to the average individual is many hundreds of times less and thus de minimis.g The Board also found that "the health consequences of this additional exposure are expected to be negligible or non-existent."9 It explained that,?while doses of radiation above 9 rads have been empirically associated with adverse i health effects, there is no similar evidence linking lower 7
LBP-89-7, 29 NRC at (slip opinion at 7). i 8
Id. at (slip opinion at 25) (citations omitted).
9 Id. at (slip opinion at 24).
I 1
1 i
i
5 dose levels of radiation. Further, projections from high level dose curves suggest that the effects of low doses are so sparse in relation to variations in natural background radiation that empirical evidence of low dose adverse health effects may never be obtained.10 The Board also noted that, even though adverse health effects from very low doses such as those calculated for the applicant's evaporation proposal have not been observed and could be zero, for radiation protection purposes, advisory agencies and committees such as The National Academy of Science's Comt.ittee on the Biological -
Effects of Ionizing Radiation ("BEIR") extrapolate.!
from observed effects at high doses to arrive at ii h risk estimates for low dose exposures. The only i effects that could be expressed statistically at :
doses are cancers as low and as those genetic preill/ cted fur evaporation health.y {!
The Board went on to find that the upper limit probability of even one fatal cancer among the 2.2 million people living within 50 miles of the plant as the result of the evaporation of AGW would be less than one chance in 400. In addition, we find that the upper limit probability exposed individual of a fataliscancer less than for the one max chance 1 pally in 5 million using NRC's calculated dose, and less than one chance in 2.g2million using [the applicant's]
calculated dose.
10 Id. at -
(slip opinion at 54).
11 Id. at (slip opinion at 55) (citations omitted).
12 Id. at (slip opinion at 56).
i l
)
6 f 1
1
- 2. The Commission's Rules of Practice provide that, in determining whether a stay is warranted, consideration must be given to the following questions: a) whether the i
moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to )
prevail on the merits; b) whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; c) whether the 1
granting of a stay would harm other parties; and d) where I the public interest lies.13 The burden of persuasion on i
each of these questions falls on the movant and, "[w}hile no i
single factor is dispositive, the most crucial is whether j irreparable injury will be incurred by the movant absent a 1
stay,"14 Moreover, "one who establishes no amount of I
\ ,
1 irreparable injury is not entitled to a stay in the absence !
l of a showing that a reversal of the decision under attack is I not merely likely, but a virtual certainty."15 Although the interveners allege irreparable injury, ,
they clearly have not met their burden on this preeminent i
1 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e).
14 Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 797 (1981). Accord Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801, 804 (1984).
1 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuc1 car Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-820, 22 NRC 743, 746 n.8 (1985). See Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir.
1985).
l 7
factor.16 In order to establish such harm, the interveners 1
must demonstrate that the injury claimed is "'both certain J and great.'" Rather than show irreparable injury, the !
l interveners have put forth a collection of cursory, seemingly contradictory, claims that lack proper supporting explanations and documentation. They assert on the one hand that the AGW is radioactive, that there is no safe level of j
exposure to radioactivity and therefore the applicant's proposai is not one of 'zero risk, and that ionizing j l
radiation causes cancer, genetic mutations, and other j adverse health effects.18 On the other hand, the I
See Interveners' Application for a Stay (Febru.ary 20, 1989) at 5-6.
Perry, 22 NRC at 747 (quoting Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d at 976).
18 For example, the interveners state that the AGW contalas "over 1000 curies of tritium, significant amounts of strontium 90, cesium 137, plutonium, antimony, and an array of a,lpha, gamma, and beta emitting radionuclides (PEIS Supp. #2 Trble 2.2)." Interveners' Application for'a Stay at 5. Yet, the very table in the PEIS referenced by the interveners shows that only the tritium exists in substantial qucatities, while the other elements range from I insubstantial quantities (0.96 curies in the case of strontium-90 is the largest) to amounts so small as to be "less than detectable." Moreover, the PEIS shows that the forced evaporation of the AGW would leave the majority of the cesium and the strontium in the evaporator bottoms for I subsequent burial, and the remainder would be released at,a rate less than 1.2% of, the continuous release rate already j permitted by the applicant's current operating license. 1 PEIS Supplement No. 2 at 3.6 - 3.7.
(Footnote Continued)
-- - _ - ___-___ ----_ __ _-. _ l
kI I
8 I
interveners seemingly endorse a sentence in the record from a statement by the International Commission on Radiological
)
)
Protection to the effect that radiation exposures are j 1
acceptable only if they are "as low as reasonably j achievable" (ALARA).19 But not only did the Licensing Board rely upon the ALARA regulatory principle in concluding that !
O evaporation of the AGW was environmentally acceptable, that standard inherently acc'epts both some level of radiation exposure and risk, contrary to the notion i initially advanced by the interveners. In any event, the interveners' assertions obviously fall far short of establishing any injury that is "both certai.n and great.
As previously noted, the Licensing Board found that the i
health risks to the surrounding population from the applicant's proposal were, at most, negligible and l
1 (Footnote Continued)
Additionally, the interveners have appended to their i stay application a number of exhibits. This material !
in'cludes, among other things, new testimony'of two of the !
interveners' witnesses purporting to critique the Licensing Board's decision, articles, and newspaper clippings. The relevance of most of this material to the particular license 1 amendment at issue in this proceeding is, at best, tenuous. I Moreover, most of this material is not part of the record I below, on which we must base our decision. In any event, l its connection to the interveners' claims of irreparable l injury occasioned by the instant Licensing Board decision is I not explained. -
j 19 Licensee'n Exhibit 4, fol. Tr. 1687, at 1689A.
20 LBP-89-7, 29 NRC at (slip opinion at 79-81).
See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I. l l
)
l j
o k 9 insubstantial.21 Further, the Board found that the radio-active releases from the evaporation of the AGW amount to only a small frdction of the releases permitted under existing regulatory requirements for operating nuclear power plants.22 In the face of such findings, it is incumbent on the interveners to explain why the Licensing Board's detailed and amply supported findings on the radiological consequences and risks from the forced evaporation of the AGW must be discarded in favor of their position, if they I
are to prove irreparable injury. Failing such a demonstra-tion, we must conclude, asihe have in other proceedings where exposure to radioactiv,e effluents from normal' plant operations was claimed to use irreparable harm., that no such injury is present.23 As the Commission has held,
"[m]ere exposure to risk . . . does not constitute irreparable injury if the risk, as here, is so low as to be remote and speculative. . . .
"24 Having failed to demonstrate any irreparable injury, i
the interveners must show that it is a virtual certainty 21 See supra pp. 4-5.
22 LBP-89-7, 29 NRC at (slip opinion at 14).
23 See Perry, 22 NRC at 747-48, 24 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-85-14, 22 NRC 177, 180 (1985). j
1 10 that the Licensing Board's initial decision will be reversed in order to obtain a stay of the license amendment authorization. Here again, however, the interveners' stay application is woefully deficient. The interveners only 1 1
present a confusing collection of assertedly serious 1
Licensing Board errors for which they provide little or no l analysis.25 The interveners' principal claim seems to be that the no-action alternative that was litigated (involving a 30-year onsite storage period for the AGW, followed by l
{
ultimate disposal'by unspecified means) was not really the i
alternative they advanced as part of their Contention 2.
! 1 f the relevant portions of the record, ourinitialrevies'o! I however, does not s upport the interveners' claim. Indeed, I the Licensing Board fully and directly addressed the interveners' ever-changing position on their so-called no-action alternative, and the interveners have not explained how the Board's treatment of this matter is 1
erroneous.26 They simply contend that the alternative I I
1 l evaluated at the hearing was not what they had in mind. 1 1
Contrary to the interveners' actions below -- no matter how well-intentioned --
i i administrative proceedings should not be a game or
} a forum to engage in unjustified obstructionism by l l l 25 See Interveners' Application for a Stay at 1-5.
26 See LBP-89-7, 29 NRC at (slip opinion at 26-32).
l l l
I
q 11 l
making cryptic and obscure reference to matters H that "ought to be" considered and then, after i failing to do more to. bring the matter to the agency's. attention, seeking to have that agency determination vacated on the ground'that the agency failg presented.""p to consider matters " forcefully I
We simply cannot conclude on the basis of the interveners' stay motion that it is a. virtual certainty.that thd Licensing Board's decision will be reversed on this claim of
! error. Nor are any of the interveners' other claims of- 1 1
error at this stage any more substantial.
In light of the foregoing, we need not consider at length the third and fourth criteria for the grant of relief j a
pursuant to 10 C'.F,R. S 2.788 (e) . It suffices to note that'
. the interveners' showing on both of them_ falls'far short of _
i
- offsetting the total lack of any demonstrated irreparable i i injury and any show ag that they are certain to prevail on l the merits of their appeal. Accordingly, the interveners' application for a stay is denied.28
}
i l
l Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.' Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978).
28 This decision is, of course, without prejudice.to our consideration of~the merits of the interveners' appeal, following full briefing.
1 i
i l
l l
i 1 J
12 It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD.
1 i
, jYA1e M ,? , ' '
' Barbara A . Tompkins' I
- j. Secretary to the Appeal Board j l
l I
l l
i f
m l
i 0
-t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of 1 I
GPU NUCLEAR 1 Docket No.(s) 50-320-OLA 1
(Three Mile Island. Unit 2)' t I
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J
! hereby certify that copies of the foregoina ALAB-914 dated 4/4/89 have been served upon the followina persons by J.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Administrative Judae Administrative Judae Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ateste Safety and Licensino Appeal i Board Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission I
, Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 i Administrative Judoe ;
! Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judae j Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensino Board U.S. Nuc' car RegulatorV Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washinaton, DC 20555 l
Administrative Judae Administrative Judae i Glenn O. Bricht Oscar H. Paris I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensina Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Washinoton, DC 20555 Washincton, DC 20555
, Stephen H. Lewis, Esc. Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esa, 1
Office of the General Counsel Shaw, Pittman. Potts & Trowbridae U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20037 F. R. Standerfer Leonard Racouzees Vice President and Director, TMI-2 Houston Lighting and Power Company GPU Nuclear Corocration 5 O. Box 289 P.O. Box 480 Houston. TX 77483 Middletown. PA 17057 l
Y Dochet No.(s,;;-320-OLA ALAB-914 dated 4/4/89
[
Richard P. Mather, Esc.
Fr ances Skolnick Assistant Counsel Susouchanna Valley Alliance Department of Environmental Resources 2079 New Danv111e Pike Commonwealth of Pennsylvant a Lancaster. PA 17603 505 Executive House Harrisburg, PA 17120 Doris M. Robb Three Mile Island Alert Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment 315 Peffer Street Division of Environment Harrisburg, PA 17102 Forbes Field Buildino 321 Topeka, KS 66620 Lee H. Thanus Betty J. Wickstrom USNRC U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission P. O. BOX 311 Region III MIDDLETOWN. PA 17057 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn. IL 60137 Commissioner Frsderick S. Rice. Chairman Eric Epstein Dauchin County Board of Commissioners RD #1, Box 435A P.O. Box 1295 Liverpool, PA 17045 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Thomas W. Bailey Jerry Skolnick 547 South Front Street 2079 New Danville Pike Harrisburo PA 17104 Lancaster. PA 17603 Violet Houcentcaler Floyd J. and Recina Kintner 412 South Queen Street 300 Commerce Street. Act. 306 Lancaster. PA 17603 Harve de Grace, MD 21078 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Hohman 2109 Manor Ridae Drive l Lancaster. PA 17603 Dated at Rockville Md. this 1 4 day of April 1989 Office of the Se tary of the Commission
-_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _