|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20056E5101993-08-11011 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal IR 05000358/19820101986-06-24024 June 1986 Applicant Exhibit A-49,consisting of Forwarding Partially Withheld Safety Insp Rept 50-358/82-10 on 820607- 0818 (Ref 10CFR2.790) & Notice of Violation ML20129A3751985-05-16016 May 1985 Order Revoking CPPR-88,based on Util 840127 Plan to Convert Facility to Coal Fuel ML20133N3621985-03-14014 March 1985 Unexecuted Amend 3 Terminating Indemnity Agreement B-85 ML20094C3571984-08-0202 August 1984 Transmittal of Info Re Util 840320 Motion for Withdrawal of OL Application.Fuel Removed from Site,Steam Supply Sys Modified & CRD Mechanisms Removed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087H7881984-03-20020 March 1984 Motion Requesting Issuance of Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Application.Plant Will Be Used as Part of New Fossil fuel-fired Electric Generating Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087N2281984-03-0101 March 1984 Endorsement 25 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20079F8181984-01-16016 January 1984 Response Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 831231 Proposed Issues & Support for Contentions Re Qa.Issues Not Specific or Litigable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083J5321983-12-31031 December 1983 Proposed Issues & Prospective Witnesses Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Proposed Contentions Re Qa,Character & Competence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H6901983-12-14014 December 1983 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 to Defer Judgment or Decision on Proposed Course of Action for Completion of Facility Until Suppl Created for Record of J Keppler 831215 Briefing.W/O Encls ML20082P8501983-12-0606 December 1983 Response Opposing City of Mentor 831115 Memorandum in Support of NRC 831031 Motion to Defer Rulings on Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record.Motion W/O Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20082M5791983-12-0202 December 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 831115 Answer to NRC 831031 Motion to Defer Ruling on Petition for Reconsideration & Motion for Leave to File Addl Evidence Prior to 831215 Conference of Counsel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082L0991983-11-30030 November 1983 Memorandum in Support of City of Mentor Motion to Further Defer Rulings Until Completion of Investigation Into Matl False Statements by NRC & Applicants.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082D6991983-11-15015 November 1983 Memorandum in Support of NRC Motion to Defer Rulings on Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen & City of Mentor Motion to Further Defer Rulings Until Completion of Investigation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081M7951983-11-15015 November 1983 Answer Opposing NRC Motion to Defer Rulings on Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) 831003 Motion to Reopen Record.Decision Should Not Be Deferred to Await Completion of Investigation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20085K7841983-10-18018 October 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 831003 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Memorandum & Order Denying Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Late Filed Contentions on Qa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078K5621983-10-13013 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Order.Mvpp Urges ASLB to Address Stds for Reopening Record.Issues Should Be Included to Ensure Complete Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F9641983-10-0606 October 1983 Notification to Commission of Miami Valley Power Project Misrepresentation in 831003 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Order.No Util Counsel Communicated W/Govt Accountability Project.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F8891983-10-0606 October 1983 Notice of Jh Laverty Employment W/Conner & Wetterhahn,Pc. Laverty Will Not Participate in Matters Leading to OL Issuance Due to Previous Employment W/Commissioner Roberts. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F8751983-10-0606 October 1983 Notice of Jh Laverty Employment W/Conner & Wetterhahn,Pc. Previous Employment W/Commissioner Roberts Eliminates Any Contribution to Zimmer Case ML20080P0771983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion for Extension to File Appeal Until 10 Days After Svc of ASLB Decision on Miami Valley Power Project Petition for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P0141983-10-0303 October 1983 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Order Denying Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Proposed Contentions.Addl Info Provided Since Original Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P0481983-09-26026 September 1983 Affidavit of T Devine Summarizing 830919 Discussion W/ C Weaver Re Summary of Interview in Torrey Pines Rept. Weaver Seriously Challenges Completeness of Interview Summary ML20080P0291983-09-26026 September 1983 Affidavit of D Jones for Govt Accountability Project Protesting Torrey Pines Rept Chapter on Cases Studies.Ref to Author Interviews Incomplete & Thus Inaccurate.Analysis of Whistleblower Missed Real Problem of Lack of Freedom ML20080P0671983-09-24024 September 1983 Affidavit of R Reiter for Govt Accountability Project Expressing Dissatisfaction of W/Summarized Interview in Torrey Pines Rept ML20080F2451983-09-13013 September 1983 Memorandum Supporting Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions. Torrey Pines Mgt Review & NRC Repts Confirm Project Substantially Correct on Qa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080E6921983-09-12012 September 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830826 Motion for Leave to Submit New Documents & for ASLB Review of Pending Investigations.Motion Unjustified Attempt to Bend Rules on Late Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20080D2791983-08-26026 August 1983 Motion for Leave to Submit New Evidence in Support of 830603 Proposed Contentions & for ASLB Review of Significant Pending Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080C7171983-08-25025 August 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830811 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Util & NRC Answers to Project 830712 Motion to Compel Discovery.Project Had Opportunity to Brief Issue in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076A6451983-08-15015 August 1983 Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Amicus Curiae Brief & Appearance Before Aslb.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E5591983-08-11011 August 1983 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Applicant & NRC 830803 & 01,respectively,answers Opposing Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Compel Discovery.Assertion of Boundary on Discovery Should Be Briefed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E3941983-08-0505 August 1983 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief & for Clarification of Responsibility to Duplicate Previous Analysis & Evidentiary Submissions.Util Challenge Frivolous,Heavy on Chutzpah & Deficient on Common Sense.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077L5161983-08-0303 August 1983 Response Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830707 Reply Brief Supporting Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record.Aslb Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Motion to Reopen to Admit Eight late-filed Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024D1381983-07-27027 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830712 Motion for Protective Order to Withhold Identity of Persons Upon Whose Allegations Project Relied in Seeking to Reopen Record.Motion W/O Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024D1171983-07-27027 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830712 Motion to Defer Ruling on Review of ALAB-727 Pending Ruling on Motions to Reopen.No Justification Given to Delay Review for Unrelated Matters ML20024D1261983-07-27027 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830712 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight QA Contentions. Motion Actually Is Untimely Appeal from Earlier ASLB Rulings.Relief Sought Contrary to Commission Orders ML20080A2721983-07-21021 July 1983 Response to Applicant Motion for Leave to Respond to Miami Valley Power Project Reply Brief.Applicant Should Respond Only to Substance of Proposed Contentions Re QA Program Inadequacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076L4691983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion for Leave to Respond by 830729 to Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) Reply Brief Re Applicant Opposition to Eight QA Contentions.Mvpp Reply Distorts Record & Applicant Position.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072N4901983-07-12012 July 1983 Motion for Protective Order to Shield Identity of Affiants Providing Portion of Basis for Miami Valley Power Project Eight Proposed Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072N4741983-07-12012 July 1983 Motion to Defer Ruling on Whether to Review ALAB-727 Until ASLB & Aslab Rule on Miami Valley Power Project 830603 & 0712 Motions to Reopen Record to Admit Contentions on QA & Character & Competence,Or Alternatively,To Reopen Record ML20072N4631983-07-12012 July 1983 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Corporate Character & Competence.Aslab Has Jurisdiction Even If ASLB Lacks Jurisdiction to Reopen Record ML20072N4501983-07-12012 July 1983 Reply Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Corporate Character & Competence & Motion to Compel Discovery on Contentions ML20072K7331983-07-0101 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830629 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Util & NRC Answers to Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record.No Purpose Would Be Served by Permitting Redundant Discussion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024B0591983-06-29029 June 1983 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief,By 830706,to NRC & Util 830630 Answers to Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Util Character & Competence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072F4481983-06-22022 June 1983 Memorandum Supporting Miami Valley Power Project 830602 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Lack of Corporate Character & Competence.Reopening Necessary to Foster Public Confidence in Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20024A6621983-06-20020 June 1983 Response Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight QA Contentions. Motion Untimely ML20024A6661983-06-20020 June 1983 Response Opposing Motions to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight QA Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076J1361983-06-16016 June 1983 Ohio Sierra Club Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions.Contentions Provide Evidence That QA Problems Exist.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076J1201983-06-16016 June 1983 Petition for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Re Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Character & Competence.Requests Extension of Time.Certificate of Svc Encl 1993-08-11
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20087H7881984-03-20020 March 1984 Motion Requesting Issuance of Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Application.Plant Will Be Used as Part of New Fossil fuel-fired Electric Generating Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079F8181984-01-16016 January 1984 Response Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 831231 Proposed Issues & Support for Contentions Re Qa.Issues Not Specific or Litigable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H6901983-12-14014 December 1983 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 to Defer Judgment or Decision on Proposed Course of Action for Completion of Facility Until Suppl Created for Record of J Keppler 831215 Briefing.W/O Encls ML20082P8501983-12-0606 December 1983 Response Opposing City of Mentor 831115 Memorandum in Support of NRC 831031 Motion to Defer Rulings on Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record.Motion W/O Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20082M5791983-12-0202 December 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 831115 Answer to NRC 831031 Motion to Defer Ruling on Petition for Reconsideration & Motion for Leave to File Addl Evidence Prior to 831215 Conference of Counsel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082L0991983-11-30030 November 1983 Memorandum in Support of City of Mentor Motion to Further Defer Rulings Until Completion of Investigation Into Matl False Statements by NRC & Applicants.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081M7951983-11-15015 November 1983 Answer Opposing NRC Motion to Defer Rulings on Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) 831003 Motion to Reopen Record.Decision Should Not Be Deferred to Await Completion of Investigation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20085K7841983-10-18018 October 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 831003 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Memorandum & Order Denying Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Late Filed Contentions on Qa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078K5621983-10-13013 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Order.Mvpp Urges ASLB to Address Stds for Reopening Record.Issues Should Be Included to Ensure Complete Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P0771983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion for Extension to File Appeal Until 10 Days After Svc of ASLB Decision on Miami Valley Power Project Petition for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P0141983-10-0303 October 1983 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830915 Order Denying Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Proposed Contentions.Addl Info Provided Since Original Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080F2451983-09-13013 September 1983 Memorandum Supporting Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions. Torrey Pines Mgt Review & NRC Repts Confirm Project Substantially Correct on Qa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080E6921983-09-12012 September 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830826 Motion for Leave to Submit New Documents & for ASLB Review of Pending Investigations.Motion Unjustified Attempt to Bend Rules on Late Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20080D2791983-08-26026 August 1983 Motion for Leave to Submit New Evidence in Support of 830603 Proposed Contentions & for ASLB Review of Significant Pending Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080C7171983-08-25025 August 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830811 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Util & NRC Answers to Project 830712 Motion to Compel Discovery.Project Had Opportunity to Brief Issue in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E5591983-08-11011 August 1983 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Applicant & NRC 830803 & 01,respectively,answers Opposing Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Compel Discovery.Assertion of Boundary on Discovery Should Be Briefed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E3941983-08-0505 August 1983 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief & for Clarification of Responsibility to Duplicate Previous Analysis & Evidentiary Submissions.Util Challenge Frivolous,Heavy on Chutzpah & Deficient on Common Sense.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077L5161983-08-0303 August 1983 Response Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830707 Reply Brief Supporting Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record.Aslb Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Motion to Reopen to Admit Eight late-filed Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024D1381983-07-27027 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830712 Motion for Protective Order to Withhold Identity of Persons Upon Whose Allegations Project Relied in Seeking to Reopen Record.Motion W/O Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024D1261983-07-27027 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830712 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight QA Contentions. Motion Actually Is Untimely Appeal from Earlier ASLB Rulings.Relief Sought Contrary to Commission Orders ML20024D1171983-07-27027 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830712 Motion to Defer Ruling on Review of ALAB-727 Pending Ruling on Motions to Reopen.No Justification Given to Delay Review for Unrelated Matters ML20080A2721983-07-21021 July 1983 Response to Applicant Motion for Leave to Respond to Miami Valley Power Project Reply Brief.Applicant Should Respond Only to Substance of Proposed Contentions Re QA Program Inadequacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076L4691983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion for Leave to Respond by 830729 to Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) Reply Brief Re Applicant Opposition to Eight QA Contentions.Mvpp Reply Distorts Record & Applicant Position.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072N4501983-07-12012 July 1983 Reply Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Corporate Character & Competence & Motion to Compel Discovery on Contentions ML20072N4631983-07-12012 July 1983 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Corporate Character & Competence.Aslab Has Jurisdiction Even If ASLB Lacks Jurisdiction to Reopen Record ML20072N4741983-07-12012 July 1983 Motion to Defer Ruling on Whether to Review ALAB-727 Until ASLB & Aslab Rule on Miami Valley Power Project 830603 & 0712 Motions to Reopen Record to Admit Contentions on QA & Character & Competence,Or Alternatively,To Reopen Record ML20072N4901983-07-12012 July 1983 Motion for Protective Order to Shield Identity of Affiants Providing Portion of Basis for Miami Valley Power Project Eight Proposed Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072K7331983-07-0101 July 1983 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830629 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Util & NRC Answers to Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record.No Purpose Would Be Served by Permitting Redundant Discussion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024B0591983-06-29029 June 1983 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief,By 830706,to NRC & Util 830630 Answers to Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Util Character & Competence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072F4481983-06-22022 June 1983 Memorandum Supporting Miami Valley Power Project 830602 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Lack of Corporate Character & Competence.Reopening Necessary to Foster Public Confidence in Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20024A6661983-06-20020 June 1983 Response Opposing Motions to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight QA Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A6621983-06-20020 June 1983 Response Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 830603 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight QA Contentions. Motion Untimely ML20076J1201983-06-16016 June 1983 Petition for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Re Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Character & Competence.Requests Extension of Time.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076J1361983-06-16016 June 1983 Ohio Sierra Club Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions.Contentions Provide Evidence That QA Problems Exist.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A0801983-06-10010 June 1983 Motion of Appalachia-Science for Extension to File Previously Submitted Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Renewed Attempt to Obtain Hearing on Eight QA Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A0771983-06-10010 June 1983 Motion of Cumberland Chapter of Sierra Club for Extension to File Previously Submitted Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Renewed Attempt to Obtain Hearings on Eight QA Contentions ML20071P8901983-06-0606 June 1983 Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Request to Reopen Licensing Hearing Re Plant Operation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071P9121983-06-0606 June 1983 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Eight Contentions on QA & Character & Competence ML20071P8851983-06-0606 June 1983 Request to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Efforts to Obtain Further Public Hearing ML20071Q0241983-06-0303 June 1983 Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Util Character & Competence.Hearings Only Comprehensive Way to Address Problems.W/Certificate of Svc ML20023D8641983-06-0303 June 1983 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Character & Competence Or,Alternatively,For ASLB to Exercise Discretion to Consider Whether Stds for 830715 Demonstration of Sua Sponte Authority Met ML20072N4281983-06-0202 June 1983 Motion to Reopen Record for Admission of Eight Contentions on QA & Corporate Character & Competence,Or Alternatively, for ASLB to Consider Whether Stds for 820715 Exercise of Sua Sponte Authority Exists ML20076J2001983-05-31031 May 1983 Cumberland Chapter of Sierra Club Request to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Renewed Attempt to Obtain Hearing on Eight QA Contentions ML20076J1641983-05-20020 May 1983 Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest Request to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Attempt to Obtain Hearing on Eight QA Contentions ML20076J2091983-05-20020 May 1983 Cumberland Chapter of Sierra Club Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Renewed Attempt to Obtain Hearing on Eight QA Contentions.Util Cannot Be Trusted to Correct Deficiencies.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076J1691983-05-17017 May 1983 Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Miami Valley Power Project Renewed Attempt to Obtain Hearings on Eight QA Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070M1601983-01-0707 January 1983 Answer in Opposition to Miami Valley Power Project 821223 Memorandum & Motion for Notification of Future Communications & Prohibition of Further Improper Ex Parte Contacts.Nrc Correspondence & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J1781982-12-23023 December 1982 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Miami Valley Power Project 820820 Petition for Reconsideration of Commission 820730 Order & Motion for Notification of All Future third- Party Communications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070F1091982-12-16016 December 1982 Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 821130 Petition to Establish Detailed Structure for Public Participation Through Audit.Intervenor Fails to Demonstrate Process Necessary to Carry Out NRC Goals.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070C5211982-12-10010 December 1982 Memorandum Supporting Zimmer Area Citizens-Zimmer Area Citizens of Ky & City of Mentor,Ky 821119 Petition for Appointment of Consulting Firm to Review & Monitor third- Party Audit.Certificate of Svc Encl 1984-03-20
[Table view] |
Text
.
-# * *h y .h * 'b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $
O,/[ In NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
h In the Matter of ) p
)
The Cincinnati Gas L Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
APPLICANT' S ITESPONSE TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S JULY 14, 1980 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Introduction on July 14, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board" or " Board") issued a Memorandum and Order setting forth its tentative views regarding a pending motion for summary disposition filed by the Applicant, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al. , on April 6, 1979, relating to Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 5. This issue concerns training of the populace in communities through which spent fuel will be transported.--1/ Dr. Fankhauser asserts that training is necessary to allow the populace to cope with transportation accidents regarding spent fuel shipped from the Zimmer Station.
The Licensing Board stated its tentative conclusion that "under the proposed interim rule, there likewise is no requirement or even warrant for providing knowledge or training of the general populace in communities through %
p503 5
_1/ See Board's Memorandum and Order of August 15, 1979, LBP-79-24, 10 NRC 226, 232. /[
800813 0 413%ff
. O
2/ !
which spent (irradiated) fuel is to be transported."-- The Board invited all parties to. submit additional comments on the Applicant's motions relating to summary disposition of contention 5, taking into account the Commission's " final" interim rule regarding physical protection of shipments of irradiated reactor fuel, 45 Fed. Reg. 37399 (June 3, 1980).
In.particu,lar, the Licensing Board inquired as to anything in the new interim rule which would modify the Board's tentative conclusion, restated above, which it reached under 3/
the proposed interim rule.
Discussion Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 5 states:
There are no plans to provide knowledge -
and training of the populace in communi-ties through which radioactive materials will be transported sufficient to allow them to be able to cope with transporta-tion accidents.
Applicant reiterates its view that the only possible reading of this contention is that it is limited in scope to emergency planning, rather than being in any way related to the prevention of sabotage. The attempt by Dr. Fankhauser to expand the contention to include industrial security J/ Memorandum and Order at 2.
3/. Id.'at 3. Rather than repeat the salient points dis-
- cussed in previous pleadings, the Applicant hereby incorporates by reference the relevant portions of
- Applicant's Motion for Sumnary Disposition dated April 6, 1979, and Applicant's Renewed Motion for
-Summary Disposition or, in the Alternative, for Certification dated July 25, 1979.
h-7 _ , - . . - - , , , , - . , - , . . . _ _ - - . , . - - . , _ -. - , . . - - - - . - - -
- .
aspects of spent fuel transportation is a transparent and desperate attempt to avoid summary disposition without the i need for demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact exists.
Even read in the light most favorable to him, it is clear that Dr. Fankhauser is not able to meet his burden under 10 '
- C.F.R. 52.749 and that this contention should be dismissed.
- 1. This Board does not have jurisdiction over the 4
~-
4/
Applicant's future compliance with the interim final rule.
The Board's finding that it had jurisdiction to consider the j shipment of new fuel to the Zimmer Station is not dispositive I of whether it has jurisdiction over the implementation of 5/
these interin regulations. In deciding the new fuel ;
t 4
issue, the Licensing Board relied in its jurisdictional ;
i determination on the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52. 717 (b ) , to wit:
(b) The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as '
appropriate may issue an order and take any otherwise proper administra-tive action with respect to a licensee who is a party to a pending proceeding.
Any order related to the subject matter of the pending proceeding mcy be modified by the presiding officet as appropriate
.for the purpose of the proceeding.
_4/ In this regard, Applicant incorporates by reference herein its previous jurisdictional arguments regarding this Board's jurisdiction contained in previous sub-mittals.
--5/ Nothing herein.should be taken as conceding the correctness of the Licensing Board's jurisdictional finding regarding the delivery of new fuel to the
-site.
_ _ _ _ _ ._ -. . ._ _ _ _ - _.)
'O .
With regard to the delivery of new fuel, the Staff had already reviewed the application submitted by the Applicant and had issued the license. Here, in contrast, the Staff has issued no. order nor taken any administrative action with respect 'to the Applicant which would confer jurisdiction upon this Board. The Board's Memorandum and Order was_ clear in stating that its decision was linited "to review [ing] an action previously taken by. the Staff . . . ."--6/
Moreover, subsequent to the issuance of the Memorandum and Ordar Denying Motion to Delay Delivery of Fuel to the Site on August 15, 1980, the Commission issued a Memorandum 7/
and Order in the Shearon Harris proceeding, wnich is rele-vant to the jurisdictional point and also to the Board's inquiry regarding whether it could question a licensee's compliance with the new interim regulation prior to an actual shipment. Therein, the Commission found that the s
Appeal Board had exceeded its authority at the construction permit stage-in directing the Staff to conduct a preliminary assessment of the Applicant's management qualifications at the operating license stage merely because the Licensing
. Board had " sufficient residual doubt concerning applicant's
_6/ LEP-79-24, 10 NRC 226, 229 (19 79) (emphasis supplied) .
_7/ Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), CLI-80-12, 11 NRC (April 17, 1980).
management capability to operate the Harris facility . . . ."--8/
While it recognized the importance of the substantive concerns, the Commission found the Appeal Board's remedy, 4 like the licensing board's solution, exceeded the authority the Commission has delegated to adjudicatory tribunals and must be vacated. The Commission stated:
It is well-settled that Boards do not possess "the authority to direct the holding of hearings following the issuance of a construction permit."
Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), 4 AEC 9, 15-16 (AEC 1967) .
It is also clear that the Boards do not direct the staff in performance of their administrative functions. 9/
The explanation given by the Ccmmission for its limita-tion on the jurisdiction of Licensing and Appeal Boards is germane to the discussion here:
An important reason for this decision is that the Boards' jurisdiction over the management qualifications issue in the construction permit proceeding will l end with this decision. 10 CFR 2. 717 (a) .
See Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and.4), CLI-79-5, 9 NRC 607, 610 (1979).
The operating-license proceeding starts with the notice of proposed action (10 CFR 2.105) and is separate from the prior proceeding. Boards have jurisdiction
--8/ Id. (slip op. at 2), The Appeal Board ordered the pre-Eearing assessment as a compromise solution after re-quiring that a hearing be held at the operating license stage on this issue after finding that the Licensing Board lacked authority for such condition ^either in the regulations or by virtue of the Commission's delegation l to it. I 9/ Id..at (slip op. at 4).
]
i 1
only in proceedings and the Appeal Board will have lost jurisdiction over the in-stant issue by the time uhe operating license notice is published. The Commis-sion is not inclined to overrule or limit its case law that has narrowly con- -
- / in order to expand strued " proceeding" the Board's delegat Ion of authority to apply to this case. 10 CFR 2. 785 ( a) .
- / See, e.g., Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-513, 8 NRC 694 (1978); Carolina Power and Light Co.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), ALAB-526, 9 NRC 122 (1579); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-530, 9 NRC 261 (1979).
Thus, the Commission has narrowly construed the meaning of the word " proceeding." Applied to the facts at bar, the jurisdiction of this proceeding and this Board will end with d
the rendering of a final decision by the Commission ordinarily not long after the issuance of the operating license. See 10.C.F.R. 52.717(a). Thus, this Board would not have jurisdiction over matters within Contention 5 as it would be interpreted now by Dr. Fankhauser, inasmuch as it would arise well after the issuance of the operating license at the time an actual shipment of spent fuel was to take place.-~10/
1_Of As discussed in the Applicant's prior pleadings on this matter, the Board's consideration of fuel trans-portation is limited in scope to consideration of the l environmental impact of such transportation as set j forth in 10 C.F.R. SS1.20 (g) (1) . Inasmuch as no con-l tention has been filed regarding such environmental l impact, the Board should not further consider the matter.
y s -
, -- .e . --- - -- ,-, . , , , . ,
Responsibility for assuring compliance with the Commission's regulations lies with the NRC Staff, specifically, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.--11/ Therefore, under the Commission's decision in Shearon Harris, matters that will arise after the termination of the Licensing Board's jurisdic-tion may not be considered by it.
- 2. Aside from its lack of delegated authority, the Licensing Board should deny Contention 5 as wholly without merit. A review of the new regulations regarding the physical protection of irradiated fuel in transit does not indicate any intent whatsoever that any of the requirements must be in place as a condition precedent to the issuance of an operating license. Importantly, in promulgating these regu-lations, the Commission has not found it necessary to anend Part 50, which sets forth the standards and requirements for the issuance of a facility operating license.--12/
11/ In Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3) , ALAB-319, 3 NRC 188, 190 (1976), the Appeal Board recognized that aside from matters before the Board, "the decision as to all other matters which need to be considered prior to the is-suance of the requested license is the responsibility of the staff and it alone." Certainly this is even more true of matters to be reviewed after the is-suance of an operating license.
12/
Cf. 10 C.F.R. S50.54 (p) , which requires the facility Industrial security plan and procedures to be in place prior to the issuance of an operating license.
Both 10 C.F.R. S73.1 and S73.37 specify that the new
~
regulations are related to the shipment of irradiated fuel and applicable to a licensee who transports or delivers to a carrier for transport. Considering the capacity of the Zimmer spent fuel pool and the current schedule for operation, spent fuel would not have to be shipped from the Zimmer facility until 1989. Inasmuch as the new rule has only interim effect, this Applicant may very well not even have to show compliance with the rule inasmuch as a final rule, possibly with different requirements, may be in place at the time of the initial spent fuel shipment from Zimmer.
Any requirement to demonstrate compliance with the interim regulations would, in effect, be a useless act.
It is not be possible to predict a destination for spent fuel to be used in any analysis to demonstrate compliance with the rule's requirements. Thus, it would be a waste of time of the Applicant, the NRC and the involved local law enforcement agencies to work out hypothetical routes and to otherwise demonstrate paper compliance with the regulations.
Viewed from another perspective, since the destination of the spent fuel is unknown, if the actual routes for offsite shipment had to be chosen at this time, the interpretation advanced by Dr. Fankhauser that a demonstration of compliance is a condition precedent to the issuance of an operating license would result in a moratorium on the issuance of such
licenses. This extremely harsh result clearly was not in-tended by the Commission.
This scheme of regulation, leaving specifics for re-solution-after the issuance of an operating license, is by no means unique in NRC practice. For example, in an area similar to the one at hand, the NRC requires certain quality assurance records for spent fuel casks to be checked prior to the delivery. of spent fuel for transportation.--13/ To our knowledge, no one has suggested that such requirements need be completed at the time an operating license is issued; certainly the NRC Staff has not acted under this premise.
For that matter, it is well recognized that a cask may not have yet been constructed at that time. Also analogous are the specific procedures for decommissioning a facility, which need not, of course, be made at the time that an 14/ !
operating license is issued. '
As noted above, compliance with these as well as other l
NRC requirements is assured by the NRC Staff's review of !
-15/
the Licensee's actions. ~ As to transportation of spent fuel, implementation of these regulations and the guidance 13/ See 10 C.F.R. S 71.12 (b) (1) .
14/ See 10 C.F.R. 550.82; Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) , LBP 26, 8 NRC 102, 168-170 (1978); Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489, 527-28 (1979).
--15/ Duquesne Licht Company (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-403, 5 NRC 1383, 1386 (1977).
u
contained in NUREG-0561 (Rev. 1), Facility Protection of Shipments of Irradiated Reactor Fuel - Interim Guides, will provide adequate assurance of the public health and safety. It must be presumed that the Staff will perform its review function.--16/
With regard to the Board's inquiry regarding the proper procedure subsequent to the completion of the operating license proceeding is a request for institution of a pro-ceeding under 52.206.--17/ Moreover, the question of specific notice with regard to shipments of radwaste or the initiation of such shipments is a generic policy question for the Commission.--18/Reference to NUREG-0561 (Revision 1) indicates that, at least for route selection, a written request must be made to the Staff and written approval will be given.
Thus there is assurance that the pendency of fuel shipments will be a matter of public record.
As a final matter, assuming arguendo that Contention 5 is somehow related to industrial security, the final interim rule has absolutely no requirement to provide knowledge and training of the populace in communities through which spent 16/ Arkansas Power and Light Company (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2), ALAB-94, 6 AEC 25, 28, 30 (1973).
17/ Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429 (1978).
18/ Duke Power Company (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station) ,
CLI-80-3, 11 NRC 185, 186 (1980).
fuel will be transported. Thus, there can be nothing sup-
-portive of Dr. Fankhauser's Contentien 5 in such interim 19/
rule even under this premise.
Conclusion Examination of the new interim rule demonstrates that there is nouhing contained therein which would =cdify the tentative conclusion reached by the Licensing Board under the proposed interim rule to the effect that there is no requirement or even warrant for providing kncwledge or training of the general population in communities through which spent fuel is to be transported. For this reason and for the reasons set forth in the Applicant's original and renewed motion for summary disposition, Dr. Fankhauser's contention 5 should be dismissed from the proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & MCORE 9
$7 Troy Tonner,Jr.
e Mark J. ..e tterhahn Counsel for Applicant August 11, 1980
-19/ Neither dcas the final rule on emergency planning, promulgated by the Commission on July.23, 1980, contain any specific emergency planning requirements related to spent fuel transportation.
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION In tha Matter of )
)
Th2 Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. ) '
)
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
CERTIFICATE CF SERVICE -
I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Response
- to the Licensing Board's July 14, 1980 Memorandum and Order,"
dated August 11, 1980, in the captioned matter, were served a upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this lith day of August, 1980:
~
Charlos Bechhoefer, Esq. Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission
! Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
.Dr. Frank F. Ecoper, Member. Chairman, Atomic Safety and
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- School of Natural Resources Commission -
University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Xr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,
Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff Richard S. Sal: man, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Director Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 20555 Washington, D.C.
W2chington, D.C. 20555 William J. Moran, Esq.
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Cincinnati Gas & Electric Appral Board Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory _ Post Office Box 960 Commission Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Waghington, D.C. 20555
.