|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20116G9431996-08-0707 August 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re, Mods to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20086D8841995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style ML20085E5891995-06-0909 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control ML20080A1331994-10-21021 October 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy.Advises That Util of Belief That NRC Focus on Safety Significance in Insps & Enforcement Policy Can Be Achieved by Utilization of Risk Based Techniques ML20073M3261994-10-0303 October 1994 Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants ML20072B8521994-08-0505 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to FFD Requirements.Licensee Believes Reduction in Amount of FFD Testing Warranted & Can Best Be Achieved in Manner Already Adopted by Commission ML20065P4121994-04-25025 April 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Rule Re Code & Stds Re Subsections IWE & Iwl.Expresses Deep Concern About Ramifications of Implementing Proposed Rule ML20058G6211993-12-0606 December 1993 Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines,Rev 2. Concurs W/Numarc & Nubarg Comments ML20056F3481993-08-23023 August 1993 Comment Opposing NRC Draft GL 89-10,suppl 6 ML20058B6891993-05-0707 May 1993 Affidavit of RP Barkhurst to File W/Nrc Encl TS Change Request NPF-38-135 ML20058E0251990-10-12012 October 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR51 Re Renewal of Nuclear Plant OLs & NRC Intent to Prepare Generic EIS ML20055E9871990-06-29029 June 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Mod for fitness-for-duty Programs & Licensed Operators.Util Believes That High Stds of Conduct Will Continue to Be Best Achieved & Maintained by Program That Addresses Integrity ML19353B2241989-12-0101 December 1989 Comments on Draft Reg Guide,Task DG-1001, Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Util Endorses NUMARC Comments W3P89-0196, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs at Nuclear Plants.Proposed Rule Would Require Establishment of Maint Programs Based on Reg Guides That Have Not Been Developed,Proposed or Approved1989-02-28028 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs at Nuclear Plants.Proposed Rule Would Require Establishment of Maint Programs Based on Reg Guides That Have Not Been Developed,Proposed or Approved ML20235V4571989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Chapter 1 Re Policy Statement on Exemption from Regulatory Control.Agrees W/Recommendations & Limits Proposed by Health Physics Society in L Taylor Ltr to Commission ML20205P9691988-10-26026 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear License Renewal. Supports Contents of NUREG-1317 & Endorses NUMARC Comments on Rulemaking & Position Paper by NUMARC Nuplex Working Group W3P88-1366, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Conserning Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants or Utilization Facilities1988-07-13013 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Conserning Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants or Utilization Facilities ML20135F0931987-04-0909 April 1987 Testimony of Bb Hayes Before Senate Government Governmental Affairs Committee on 870326 Re Discovery of Sensitive NRC Document in Files of Senior Official of Louisiana Power & Light Co ML20212N5781986-08-27027 August 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000 Based on Violations Noted in Insp Conducted on 860101-31. Violation Noted:Plant Entered Mode 3 While Relying on Action Requirements of Tech Spec 3.6.2.1 ML20202G3811986-04-10010 April 1986 Order Imposing Civil Penalties in Amount of $130,000,based on Safety Insps of Licensee Activities Under CPPR-103 Conducted from June 1983 - Sept 1985.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20210B9141986-02-0505 February 1986 Notice of Publication of Encl 841219 Order.Served on 860206 ML20198H4461986-01-30030 January 1986 Memorandum & Order CLI-86-01 Denying Remaining Portion of Joint Intervenors 841108 Fifth & Final Motion to Reopen Record Re Character & Competence of Util Per 850711 Decision ALAB-812.Dissenting View of Palladino Encl.Served on 860130 ML20137J3531986-01-17017 January 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860214 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 860117 ML20138P5301985-12-20020 December 1985 Order Extending Time Until 860117 for Commission to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851220 ML20137U4821985-12-0505 December 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851220 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851205 ML20138S0051985-11-15015 November 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851206 for Commission to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851115 ML20138H2451985-10-24024 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851115 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851024 ML20133F2711985-10-0404 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851025 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812 .Served on 851007 ML20134L5981985-08-28028 August 1985 Notice of Appearance of R Guild & Withdrawal of Appearance by L Bernabei & G Shohet for Joint Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J2801985-08-26026 August 1985 Answer in Opposition to Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Commission Review of Aslab 850711 Decision ALAB-812, Which Denied Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record.Kw Cook 850821 Affidavit Encl ML20137J2941985-08-21021 August 1985 Affidavit of Kw Cook Re Recent Equipment Failures Discussed in Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20136J1961985-08-19019 August 1985 Answer Requesting That Commission Deny Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Review of ALAB-812 Denying Motion to Reopen QA & Character Competence Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133L8901985-08-0909 August 1985 Petition for Review of ALAB-812,denying Joint Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record of OL Hearing to Litigate Util Lack of Character & Inability to Assure Safe Operation in Light of Const QA Breakdown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133L0421985-08-0808 August 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850920 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 850808 ML20128Q1861985-07-23023 July 1985 Request for Extension of Time Until 850809 to File Appeal to 850711 ALAB-812 Denying Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209F1921985-07-11011 July 1985 Decision ALAB-812 Denying Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record on Const QA & Mgt Character & Competence, Except Insofar as Issues Re Matters Under Investigation by Ofc of Investigation Are Raised.Served on 850711 ML20116P1931985-05-0606 May 1985 Response to NRC & Util Responses to Aslab 850322 Memorandum & Order ALAB-801.Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Proceedings for Litigation of Util Competence Should Be Granted.Supporting Documentation & Svc List Encl ML20116H3341985-04-30030 April 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100K3221985-04-10010 April 1985 Supplementary Comments Attesting to Validity of Statements of Fact in Sser 9 & Clarifying & Explaining Current Position on Resolution of Allegation A-48.Util Can Safely Operate & Manage Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20111C7021985-03-14014 March 1985 Affidavit of RP Barkhurst Re Power Ascension Testing Program to Be Performed at Levels Above 5% of Rated Power.Facility & Operating Staff in Excellent State of Readiness to Proceed W/Power Ascension ML20112A9381985-03-14014 March 1985 Affidavit of RP Barkhurst Re Power Ascension Testing Program Performed at Levels Above 5% Rated Power & Delay in Issuance of Full Power Operating Authority.Related Correspondence ML20111B6541985-03-12012 March 1985 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Applicant Response to Supplemental Memorandum.Svc List Encl ML20102C1351985-02-28028 February 1985 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 850225 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Response to Suppl.Suppl Untimely Filed.Allegations Unsupported.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107M7321985-02-25025 February 1985 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motions to Reopen.Request Based on Recent Public Repts Re Instability & Lack of Independence of Mgt of Applicant & Lack of Respect for NRC ML20195F5871985-02-25025 February 1985 Affidavit of Rk Kerr Re 841120 Meeting W/Cain,Dd Driskill, R Barkhurst,Admiral Williams & Rs Leddick to Discuss Licensee 1983 Drug Investigation 05-001-83(966) & 841206 Meeting Between Licensee & NRC in Arlington,Tx ML20107M7461985-02-25025 February 1985 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen.Determination by Aslab That Joint Intervenors Met Burden to Reopen Record for Litigation of Contention That Util Mgt Lacks Competence Requested ML20101T3701985-02-0101 February 1985 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 850125 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant 841130 & Staff 841221 Answers.Motion Should Be Denied & Reply Brief Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101U3411985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation ML20101U3511985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation.Certificate of Svc Encl 1996-08-07
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20137J2801985-08-26026 August 1985 Answer in Opposition to Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Commission Review of Aslab 850711 Decision ALAB-812, Which Denied Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record.Kw Cook 850821 Affidavit Encl ML20136J1961985-08-19019 August 1985 Answer Requesting That Commission Deny Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Review of ALAB-812 Denying Motion to Reopen QA & Character Competence Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133L8901985-08-0909 August 1985 Petition for Review of ALAB-812,denying Joint Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record of OL Hearing to Litigate Util Lack of Character & Inability to Assure Safe Operation in Light of Const QA Breakdown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20128Q1861985-07-23023 July 1985 Request for Extension of Time Until 850809 to File Appeal to 850711 ALAB-812 Denying Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116P1931985-05-0606 May 1985 Response to NRC & Util Responses to Aslab 850322 Memorandum & Order ALAB-801.Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Proceedings for Litigation of Util Competence Should Be Granted.Supporting Documentation & Svc List Encl ML20111B6541985-03-12012 March 1985 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Applicant Response to Supplemental Memorandum.Svc List Encl ML20102C1351985-02-28028 February 1985 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 850225 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Response to Suppl.Suppl Untimely Filed.Allegations Unsupported.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107M7461985-02-25025 February 1985 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen.Determination by Aslab That Joint Intervenors Met Burden to Reopen Record for Litigation of Contention That Util Mgt Lacks Competence Requested ML20107M7321985-02-25025 February 1985 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motions to Reopen.Request Based on Recent Public Repts Re Instability & Lack of Independence of Mgt of Applicant & Lack of Respect for NRC ML20101T3701985-02-0101 February 1985 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 850125 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant 841130 & Staff 841221 Answers.Motion Should Be Denied & Reply Brief Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101U3411985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation ML20101U3511985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112C0071985-01-0808 January 1985 Applicant Answer to NRC Staff Motion for Clarification &/Or Reconsideration Re Concrete Basemat & Qa.Qa Motion Lacks Presentation of Matters.Decision on QA Motion Should Be Reconsidered.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100B0251984-11-30030 November 1984 Response to Joint Intervenors Protective Order to Shield Identity of Several Individuals Having Executed Affidavits in Support of Concurrent Motion to Reopen Record.Motion Must Be Denied ML20100B0481984-11-30030 November 1984 Response to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record & Admit Contentions Alleging QA Failures,Applicant Lack of Character & Competence to Operate Plant & Inadequate Review. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20099D2861984-11-16016 November 1984 Motion for Extension of Time to 841130 for Filing Answers to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motions Due to Vol of Matl & Thanksgiving Holiday.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K6651984-11-0606 November 1984 Motion for Protective Order to Shield Identity of Individuals Who Signed Affidavits Providing Portion of Basis for Joint Intervenors 841107 Motion to Reopen Record on QA Breakdown at Plant ML20092B6371984-06-15015 June 1984 Response to NRC Motion for Addl Extension of Time Until 840706 to Respond to Joint Intervenors Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22.No Objection Offered.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084P7961984-05-17017 May 1984 Response to NRC 840515 Motion for Further Extension of Time Until 840615 to Respond to Joint Intervenors Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22.Motion Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087P8541984-04-0606 April 1984 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time.Intervenors Have Had Two Chances to Present Adequate Motion to Open Record on QA Allegations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087N0871984-03-28028 March 1984 Motion for Extension of 6 Months to File Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080R9611984-02-20020 February 1984 Motion to Open QA Contention,Based in Part on Encl Article Re Doctored Records.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079F3241984-01-13013 January 1984 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 831212 Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22 & Request for Public Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083D9361983-12-22022 December 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 840113 to File Answer to Joint Intervenors 831212 Motion to Reopen Record to Consider Contention 22.Extension Needed Due to Holidays.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082T9991983-12-12012 December 1983 Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22 in Light of Newly Discovered Evidence.News Article & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080R1851983-10-12012 October 1983 Response to NRC 831007 Motion for Further Extension to 831121 to File Response to Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Contention.Motion Not Opposed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076G8881983-08-29029 August 1983 Request for Extension to File Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Contention 22,to 10 Days After Util Receipt of Consultant Analysis Rept.Granted by Aslab on 830829 ML20024E2861983-08-0404 August 1983 Request for Extension Until 830909 to Allow Response to Joint Intervenor 830722 Motion to Reopen Record on Basis of Moisture Found on Foundation Mat Floor.Engineering Rept Due 830901.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072N8331983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion to Associate Author as co-counsel W/L Fontana for Intervenors ML20072N8591983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion to Reopen Contention 22 in Light of Newly Discovered Evidence ML20072N8821983-07-15015 July 1983 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reopen Contention 22 Re Available Info on Slab Cracks Initially Reported in 1977, Reappearing on 830511.New Hearing Requested to re-review Deficiencies in Plant Design ML20024A0661983-06-10010 June 1983 Exceptions to ASLB 830526 Partial Initial Decision. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20073Q4591983-04-26026 April 1983 Supports NRC 830415 Motion to Correct Hearing Transcript. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069H4771983-03-29029 March 1983 Request for 1-wk Extension of Filing Date for Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Evacuation Brochure.No Opposition Expressed to Granting Applicant Reasonable Extension ML20069G4041983-03-22022 March 1983 Response Opposing State of La 830311 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief on Issue of DHR Capability.Motion Untimely & No Good Cause Shown.Issue Abandoned by Parties Cannot Be Briefed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069E9681983-03-18018 March 1983 Request for Enlargement of 70-page Limit on Brief Opposing Joint Intervenors exceptions.Sixty-one Exceptions Cannot Be Addressed in 70 Pages.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069C2691983-03-11011 March 1983 Motion to File Brief Amicus Curiae,Per 10CFR2.715,re Feed & Bleed Capability.Issue Must Be Presented to Aslab. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083Q5371983-02-23023 February 1983 Request for Extension Until 830325 to File Brief in Opposition to Joint Intervenors Exceptions.Extension Necessary Because of Time Needed to Prepare for Three Other NRC Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070T1991983-02-0404 February 1983 Brief Supporting Joint Intervenors Exceptions Re Contentions 8/9 & 17/26 (1) & (2).Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070L4921982-12-27027 December 1982 Exceptions to 821103 Partial Initial Decision ML20079J3491982-12-24024 December 1982 Exception to ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision Re Condition 2.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070H4121982-12-17017 December 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821213 Memorandum & Order.Due to Ill Health of E Duncan,30-day Extension Requested in Which to File Direct Testimony & Commence Hearings ML20067C5171982-12-0707 December 1982 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 821130 Motion to Extend Time for Filing Direct Testimony & to Reschedule Hearing on Emergency Brochure.Joint Intervenors Fail to Justify Untimeliness of Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069N3271982-11-29029 November 1982 Response Opposing Applicant 821112 Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Certain Rulings in ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision on Conditions for Evacuation & Ltrs of Agreement ML20028A3051982-11-17017 November 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821129 to File Exceptions to ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision.Time Needed Due to Research Coordinator Giving Premature Birth & Having Minor Complications ML20066F0271982-11-12012 November 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision & Motion for Extension of Time to File Supporting Brief Until 30 Days After Svc of ASLB Ruling.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066E9571982-11-12012 November 1982 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Portion of ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision Dealing W/Conditions Re State & Local Offsite Emergency Plans & Scope of Contention 2 on Vehicles & Drivers.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071N4061982-10-0606 October 1982 Erratum to Applicant 821004 Response to Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071N4111982-10-0606 October 1982 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 820929 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Make Discovery & Objections to Request for Production of Documents.Discovery Requests Prohibited by Commission Rules ML20063N7481982-10-0404 October 1982 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 820929 Motion to Reopen. Requests Not Founded in Fact or Law & Fly in Face of Any Sense of Administrative Discipline & Procedural Regularity. Some Requests Defy Logic.Certificate of Svc Encl 1985-08-09
[Table view] |
Text
4 DOCKETED US14RC November 12, 1982 '82 NOV 16 Pi:23
'? ~ ~ " EEc3g f,pv
" ' '. v -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION On November 3, 1982, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision on the majority of the issues considered in the operating license hearing for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. Applicant hereby moves the Licensing Board for reconsideration or clarification of (i) that part of its Order which requires the satisfaction of certain conditions relating to the State and local offsite emergency plans before an operating license can issue, as contrasted to authority for operation at greater than 5% of rated power, and (ii) the scope of Condition 2 of the Order relating to letters of agreement for vehicles and drivers.
~
~
"8211170336'0211'i2 ~ ,
PDR ADOCK 05000382 O PDR
~ j The consequences flowing to Applicant from these portions of the Order are potentially severe. Because the record does not support or justify the imposition of such consequences, Applicant believes that they may have been unintended, and that the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision can be easily clarified by minor modifications.
Section 2.762 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR S 2.762, as cited by the Licensing Board at pages 71-72 of the Partial Initial Decision, requires that exceptions must be filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board within ten days after service of the Decision. Consequently, Applicant is concurrently filing with the Appeal Board excep-tions with respect to the matters raised in this motion.
However, the Appeal Board has held that in certain cases it may be more appropriate to first bring the matter to the attention of the Licensing Board for relief. Power Authority of the State of New York, et al. (James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-169, 6 A.E.C. 1157, 1158, n.2 (1973). We are therefore requesting the Appeal Board to toll the time for filing the brief in support of the exceptions pending the Licensing Board's ruling on this motion.
I. TIME FOR SATISFYING CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE LICENSING BOARD The Order, at page 71 of the Partial Initial Decision, specifies that four conditions related to the offsite emergency plans "shall be met prior to issuance of an operating-license." Since fuel cannot be loaded, and low power testing cannot be accomplished, prior to the issuance of an operating license, the effect of the condition, interpreted literally, is to prevent fuel loading and low power testing prior to satis-faction of all four conditions. This consequence is, we believe, an inadvertent accident of the wording of the Order, and contrary to a recent amendment of the Commission's regula-tions at 10 CFR S 50.47(d).
Section 50.47(d), added effective as of July 13, 1982, 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 (July 13, 1982), specifies that:
... no NRC or FEMA review, findings, or determinations concerning the state of offsite emergency preparedness or the adequacy of and capability to implement State and local offsite emergency plans are required prior to l issuance of an operating license l authorizing only fuel loading and/or
. low power operations (up to 5% of the rated power).1/ (emphasis added.)
All four of the conditions imposed by the Order relate exclusively to the State and Parish offsite emergency 1/ Tnis provision does not apply to onsite emergency pre-paredness.
, - - . - - - , . - , . , , , , -- - - , - - --___------w -
plans. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the first sentence of the Licensing Board's. order be modified to read as follows, the proposed change being indicated by the underlining:
In the event that Joint Intervenors' contention 17/26(1)(a) is resolved in favor of plant operation, the following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of an operating license authorizing operations of greater than 5% of the rated power.2/
II. LICENSING BOARD CONDITION 2 Condition 2 of the Licensing Board's Order states:
(2) Letters of agreement with the support parishes for vehicles and drivers necessary to implement the evacuation plans shall be completed and submitted to the NRC Staff.
(underlining added).
Applicant does not take issue with the general intent of the condition. In fact, Applicant itself proposed a similar condition in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.3/ Applicant's concerns are with the undorlined words of 2/ This change is likely to have practical significance to Applicant because of a recent amendment to the Commission's immediate effectiveness rule at 10 CFR S 2.764 which provides, in effect, that an operating license will be issued immediately upon issuance of an initial decision, but that the license will be conditioned to authorize only fuel loading and low power operations until completion of the Commission's review pursuant to section 2.764(f)(2).
3/ Applicant, in consideration of the record in this proceeding, proposed that issuance'of the full power operating license be conditioned, inter alia, as follows:
(Continued Next Page)
r-the condition as stated-_above, which, in' fact, may render the condition impossible to be fulfilled.
The first concern is that the letters of agreement are to be with the support parishes. The local governments in southeastern Louisiana are structured such that agreements for transportation resources may have to be reached with entities other'than the parish itself. In some cases, for example, a letter of agreement for the supply of school buses would be with the school board or the school district within the support parish. Thus, Applicant requests that the condition not be restricted to letters of agreement with the support parishes.
Applicant's second concern with Condition 2, as stated by the Licensing Board, involves the requirement that letters of agreement be provided for drivers as well as for the vehicles. Such agreements for drivers are not required by NRC or FEMA regulations, are not necessary, and, as a legal or practical matter, may be impossible to obtain.
(Continued)
- 3. Signed letters of agreement shall be provided to the Staff for the supply of support parish buses and ambulances for the evacuation from the plume EPZ of school children, persons without transportation, the aged and handicap-ped, and persons in nursing homes and hospitals.
Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Brief in the Form of a Proposed Initial Decision, at 126-7, June 11, 1982. The NRC Staff proposed a similar condition.
NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Form of Order, at 30, July 15, 1982.
l i
A. Agreements for Drivers Are Not Required by Applicable Regulations The Commission's requirements with respect to offsite emergency plans are found in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 and Appendix E.
Equivalent requirements are found in section 350.5 of FEMA's proposed regulations, 44 C.F.R. Part 350, 47 Fed. Reg. 36386 (August 19, 1982). Both the NRC and FEMA requirements are supplemented with the more specific criteria set out in
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980
("NUREG-0654"), which was developed jointly by NRC and FEMA.
Neither the NRC regulations nor the FEMA proposed regulations, including NUREG-0654, requires letters of agreement for the availability of drivers. Moreover, Applicant knows of no other licensing board decision which has imposed such a requirement, no operating license which is conditioned with such a require-ment, and no instance where NRC or FEMA has imposed such a requirement.
Section 50.47(a)(2) of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 provides that the NRC's findings on the adequacy of State and local (offsite) emergency plans and their capability of being implemented will be based on the findings and determinations of FEMA. As the Licensing Board noted at page 36 of the Partial Initial Decision, the FEMA findings are presumed to be
correct.4/ In this proceeding,.the FEMA witnesses testified that the evacuation plans were adequate, subject to the
- existence of letters of agreement for providing necessary vehicles. FEMA testimony of John W. Benton and Albert L.
Lookabaugh Regarding Emergency Planning (Contention 17/26), ff.
Tr.-2864; Tr. 2870-73. FEMA did not condition its findings of adequacy on a requirement for letters of. agreement for the provision of drivers or any other personnel. No party provided testimony rebutting this presumption of adequacy. As discussed in Section D, the record does not support the need for such a condition; indeed, as discussed in Section B below, nothing in the evidentiary record or the pleadings even addresses the subject of such letters of agreement for drivers.
B. The Need for Letters of Agreements for Drivers Was Not_. Raised in This Proceeding The subject matter of this operating license pro-ceeding consists solely of the matters which have been placed into controversy by the Joint Intervenors. See Partial Initial Decision at 1-2. The question of letters of agreement for the 4
availability of vehicles for evacuation purposes arose, as a result of the testimony by FEMA witnesses, within the context J/ 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(2) provides that, "In any NRC licensing proceeding, a FEMA finding will constitute a rebuttable presumption on questions of adequacy and implementation capability."
r
. , , , - .,e.. ----,,-.-a,- c.. , -- . - , ,- ..,. ,.- , ,---.,. , ,--, - . - _ - - - . , - -
of Joint-Intervenors' Contention 17/26(1)(f) which alleged that:
Applicant has failed to adequately make provision, according to the Emergency Plan contained in Chapter 13.3 of the FSAR, for evacuation of individuals located within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone for the Waterford 3 site in the event of a serious reactor incident, as required by applicable NRC regulations, in that:
(f) procedures are inadequate for evac-uating people who are:
(i) without vehicles; (ii) school children; (iii) aged or crippled; (iv) sick and hospitalized; (v) imprisoned; (vi) transient. workers.
At no time during the course of the prehearing activities, the hearing, or the p st-hearing pleadings did Joint Intervenors allege the need for letters of agreement with respect to drivers of evacuation vehicles, or did they even raise the subject. Further, during the course of prehearing i
discovery, when Applicant propounded interrogatories to Joint Intervenors to elicit their specific allegations of inadequacy ,
of the evacuation procedures within the scope of Contention 17/26(1)(f), Joint Intervenors gave no indication of concern about the availability of any personnel, let alone an allega-l tion that letters of agreement would be required.
Because of the FEMA testimony, filed shortly before l
i the hearing commenced, the availability of buses and other w - - , - . . - , - - , . - - - - , - ,, , , - - , . -
vehicles, and the need for letters of agreement to assure the availability of such vehicles, was extensively litigated.
However, at no time during the hearing did any party allege the need for, or even mention, letters of agreement for drivers.
In the proposed-findings and conclusions filed at the conclu-sion of the hearing by Applicant and the NRC Staff (which embraced the FEMA positions), both parties proposed a condition requiring letters of agreement for the availabil'ty of vehi-cles; consistent with the hearing record, neither Applicant nor the NRC Staff proposed a condition for letters of agreement for drivers. Joint Intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions neither asserted that such a requirement be imposed, nor proposed such a condition.
Thus, with the issuance of the Partial Initial Decision, Applicant learned for the first time that such a l requirement was even being considered. Because Applicant had no notice of such an issue, it had no opportunity to address the issue in prehearing motions (e.g., motion for summary disposition), at the hearing itself, or in post-hearing pleadings. The need for letters of agreement for drivers not having been raised in these proceedings, it is both inappro-priate and severely prejudicial to Applicant to now impose such a condition.
_g_
C. Condition 2 May Be Impossible to Fulfill It is unlikely that a support parish or other governmental organization would have the authority to execute letters of agreement which bind individual drivers, whether they are employees or individual contractors, to act in accordance with the. Licensing Board's Condition 2. Even if such authority were to exist, Applicant has no indication that such support parishes or other organizations would be willing to do so. Thus, this unexpected condition may well be impos-sible to meet, resulting in extreme prejudice and disadvantage to Applicant.
D. The Record Does Not Support the Need for Condition 2 Although the topic of written letters of agreement for the availability of bus drivers was not raised at the hearing, Joint Interv nors conducted cross-examination on the question of whether bus drivers from support parishes would be willing to drive their buses into the EPZ within the two risk parishes. The record clearly shows that the bus drivers will be given special training, but, if in spite of the training they elect not to drive into the EPZ, the buses would be driven by support parish or risk parish emergency workers. Tr.
2509-10, 2558-63, 2567-8, 2619-20, 2992-3001. No party provided evidence to the contrary.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant requests that the Licensing Board reconsider or clarify the intent of Condition 2 of its Order. Applicant would suggest that if Contention 2 were to be reworded as follows, Applicant's concerns would be allayed and the Licensing Board's basic intent would be preserved:
(2) Letters of agreement for vehicles from support parishes necessary to implement the evacuation plans shall be completed and submitted to the NRC Staff.
III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing discussions, Applicant respectfully requests that the Licensing Board reconsider or clarify the introduction and Condition 2 of the Order at page 71 of the November 3, 1982 Partial Initial Decision as sug-gested by Applicant in Sections I and II above.5/ Such modifications would eliminate the potential for severe and 5/ Changes to the Order might also involve minor changes at pages 22 and 56 of the Partial Initial Decision.
i o
~
unnecessary consequences which, Applicant believes, were not intended by the Licensing Board.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By m M ce W. W rchill Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
James B. Hamlin Delissa A. Ridgway Counsel for Applicant 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: November 12, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification" were served by deposit in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the persons on the attached service list, this 12th day of November, 1982.
I DJ 1 <>
( s 'BruceMi. Churchill l
l Dated: November 12, 1982 i
l
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i-
~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board t
In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER in LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
, SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Gary Groesch Administrative Judge 2257 Bayou Road Chairman, Atomic Safety and New Orleans, LA 70119 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Luke B. Fontana, Esquire Commission 824 Esplanada Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 New Orleans, LA 70116 I Dr. Harry Foreman Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Director, Center for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Population Studies Commission Box 395, Mayo Washington, D.C. 20555 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Dr. Walter H. Jordan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission 881 West Outer Drive Washington, D.C. 20555
. Docketing & Service Section (3)
Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Office of the Secretary Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission
< U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Spence W. Perry,. Esquire Federal Emergency Management Brian Cassidy, Esquire Agency Federal Emergency Management Office of General Counsel Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Region I Washington, D.C. 20472 422 J. W. McCormack Boston, MA 03109
. -