|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEAR3F0999-05, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Rev 2, Event Reporting Guidelines1999-09-14014 September 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Rev 2, Event Reporting Guidelines L-99-201, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments1999-09-0707 September 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments ML20206H4441999-05-0303 May 1999 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 10CFR171 Re Rev of Fy 1999 Fee Schedules ML20205J0461999-04-0101 April 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Draft Std Review Plan on Foreign Ownership,Control & Domination.Util Supports Approach Set Forth in SRP Toward Reviewing Whether Applicant for NRC License Owned by Foreign Corp.Endorses NEI Comments ML20205B3771999-03-16016 March 1999 Comment Opposing PRM 50-64 Re Liability of Joint Owners of Npps.Util Endorses Comments of NEI & Urges Commission to Deny Petition for Rulemaking ML17355A2511999-03-0909 March 1999 Comment Supporting Amend to Policy & Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Re Treatment of Severity Level IV Violations at Power Reactors.Util Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Revs L-98-306, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP1998-12-10010 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP L-98-272, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses1998-10-28028 October 1998 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses L-98-252, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule1998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule L-98-248, Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement1998-10-0505 October 1998 Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement ML17354A8741998-03-27027 March 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication,Lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal (M97978) ML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998 Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997 Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20217J4321997-08-0707 August 1997 Memorandum & Order.* Grants Staff Petition for Review & Reverses Presiding Officer Decision Requiring Staff to Issue Tetrick SRO License.Order Disapproved by Commissioner Diaz. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970807 ML20148P8461997-06-25025 June 1997 Memorandum & Order (Determination of Remand Question).* Concludes That Presiding Officer Reaffirms Determination That Response of Rl Tetrick to Question 63 of Exam to Be SRO Was Incorrect.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970626 ML17354A5521997-06-18018 June 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, CR Insertion Problems. ML20141F5441997-06-13013 June 1997 NRC Staff Response to Presiding Officer Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Staff Submits That Tetrick Request for Reconsideration of Grading of Question 63 on SRO License Written Exam Should Be Denied ML20141F5711997-06-13013 June 1997 Supplemental Affidavit of B Hughes & Ta Peebles.* Affidavit Re Tetrick Request for Reconsideration of Grading of Question 63 on SRO License Written Exam.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997 Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc ML20148G6531997-05-27027 May 1997 Notice.* Forwards Documents Received & Read by Author from Rl Tetrick on 970317 W/O Being Served as Required Under Procedural Rules.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970527 ML20148G7071997-05-27027 May 1997 Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Rl Tetrick May Respond to Questions W/Filing Served Pursuant to Procedural Regulations W/Notarized Statement to Be Received by 970617.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 970527 ML20148G7501997-05-20020 May 1997 Memorandum & Order CLI-97-05.* Staff May Withhold Issuance of SRO License to Rl Tetrick Pending Further Order of Commission.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970520 ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997 Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access ML20141C7331997-05-16016 May 1997 Order Extending Until 970616,time within Which Commission May Rule on NRC Staff 970416 Petition for Review of Presiding Officer Initial Decision.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 970516 ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997 Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty ML20138J2331997-05-0202 May 1997 Affidavit.* Affidavit of B Hughes Re Denial of Application for SRO License for Rl Tetrick.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138J2271997-05-0202 May 1997 NRC Staff Response to Questions Posed in Commission Order of 970425.* Staff Respectfully Submits That Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceedings LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6 ML20138J2241997-05-0202 May 1997 Line (Providing Omitted Citation).* Informs That Submitted Citation Inadvertently Omitted from Response to Questions Posed in Commission Order of 970425.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138J2401997-04-25025 April 1997 Scheduling Order.* Staff Instructed to File W/Commission,By COB 970502,response to Tetrick Argument Re Question 63 & Discussion of Legal Significance of Consistent Staff Practices.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970425 ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997 Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns ML20137X5921997-04-16016 April 1997 NRC Staff Petition for Commission Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137X5511997-04-11011 April 1997 NRC Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Stay Effectiveness of Decision in Subj Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137R3531997-03-27027 March 1997 Correct Copy of Memorandum & Order (Denial of Reconsideration,Stay).* Denies NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970327 ML20137F5551997-03-25025 March 1997 NRC Staff Response to Memorandum & Order of 970321.* Presiding Officer Should Grant Staff 970310 Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137F8251997-03-21021 March 1997 Memorandum & Order (Grant of Housekeeping Stay).* Orders That Effect of Initial Decision Postponed Until Close of Business on 970326.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970321 ML20137F5081997-03-17017 March 1997 NRC Staff Motion for Issuance of Stay.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Stay in Matter of Issuance of SRO License ML20137F5371997-03-17017 March 1997 NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration in Matter of Rl Tetrick.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Reconsideration ML20136F2981997-03-12012 March 1997 Memorandum & Order (Grant of Housekeeping Stay).* Informs That Initial Decision Issued by Presiding Officer on 970228 Postponed Until 970321 & Rl Tetrick May File Response by 970318.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970312 ML20136F2351997-03-10010 March 1997 NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration Introduction.* Requests That Presiding Officer Reconsider Determination That Tetrick Passed Written Exam & Find,Instead,That Tetrick Failed Written Exam ML20136F3411997-03-10010 March 1997 NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officers Initial Decision LBP-97-2.* Staff Submits That Presiding Officer Should Stay Effectiveness of Initial Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20136F2721997-03-0606 March 1997 Supplemental Affidavit of B Hughes.* Supports Staff Motion for Reconsideration of Presiding Officer Initial Decision of 970228.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138Q0191997-02-28028 February 1997 Initial Decision.* Concludes That Rl Tetrick Had Passing Score of 80% & Should Be Granted License as Sro. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970228 ML20134A6551997-01-23023 January 1997 Written Presentation of NRC Staff.* Staff Concludes That SE Turk Failed Written Exam & Did Not Establish Sufficient Cause to Change Grading of Answers to Listed Questions. Denial of Application for SRO License Should Be Sustained ML20134A6661997-01-23023 January 1997 Affidavit of B Hughes & Ta Peebles Re Denial of Application for SRO License.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970124 ML20129J5681996-10-23023 October 1996 Memorandum & Order (Error).* Informs of Incorrect Caption Identified in Order .W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961023 ML20129D4981996-10-21021 October 1996 Memorandum & Order (Grant of Request for Hearing Scheduling).* Requests for Hearing Hereby Granted. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961021 ML20129D6681996-10-18018 October 1996 NRC Staff Answer to Rl Tetrick Request for Hearing.* Staff Does Not Oppose Request & Will Be Prepared to Submit Hearing File.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20129D4401996-10-0909 October 1996 Designating of Presiding Officer.* Pb Bloch Designated to Serve as Presiding Officer to Conduct Informal Adjudicatory Hearing in Proceeding of Rl Tetrick Re Denial of SRO License.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961010 ML17353A6311996-01-19019 January 1996 Decision & Remand Order Re FPL Discrimination Against RR Diaz-Robainas.FPL Ordered to Offer Reinstatement to RR Diaz-Robainas W/Comparable Pay & Benefits,To Pay Him Back Pay W/Interest & to Pay His Costs & Expenses Re Complaint ML17353A2471995-06-27027 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style. 1999-09-07
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998 Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997 Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20141F5441997-06-13013 June 1997 NRC Staff Response to Presiding Officer Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Staff Submits That Tetrick Request for Reconsideration of Grading of Question 63 on SRO License Written Exam Should Be Denied ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997 Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997 Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997 Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty ML20138J2271997-05-0202 May 1997 NRC Staff Response to Questions Posed in Commission Order of 970425.* Staff Respectfully Submits That Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceedings LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6 ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997 Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns ML20137X5921997-04-16016 April 1997 NRC Staff Petition for Commission Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137X5511997-04-11011 April 1997 NRC Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Stay Effectiveness of Decision in Subj Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137F5551997-03-25025 March 1997 NRC Staff Response to Memorandum & Order of 970321.* Presiding Officer Should Grant Staff 970310 Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137F5081997-03-17017 March 1997 NRC Staff Motion for Issuance of Stay.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Stay in Matter of Issuance of SRO License ML20137F5371997-03-17017 March 1997 NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration in Matter of Rl Tetrick.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Reconsideration ML20136F2351997-03-10010 March 1997 NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration Introduction.* Requests That Presiding Officer Reconsider Determination That Tetrick Passed Written Exam & Find,Instead,That Tetrick Failed Written Exam ML20136F3411997-03-10010 March 1997 NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officers Initial Decision LBP-97-2.* Staff Submits That Presiding Officer Should Stay Effectiveness of Initial Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20129D6681996-10-18018 October 1996 NRC Staff Answer to Rl Tetrick Request for Hearing.* Staff Does Not Oppose Request & Will Be Prepared to Submit Hearing File.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20070E7721991-02-25025 February 1991 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Reject or Strike Appellant Reply.* Sarcastic Language in Reply Should Be Stricken & Applellant Should Be Required to Provide Supplementary Info.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070C1971991-02-19019 February 1991 Licensee Reply to Appeal Request of Tj Saporito.* Licensee Adopts Position & Argument of NRC as Stated in Appeal. W/Certificate of Svc ML20066G9711991-02-0808 February 1991 Licensees Motion to Reject or Strike Petitioners Reply to Motion to Dismiss.* Moves Aslab to Reject or Strike Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 910128 Reply Due to Discourteous & Insulting Tone of Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20073E0511991-01-28028 January 1991 Reply.* Board of Directors of Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Have Not Decided to Dissolve Neap.Tj Saporito Notification That Neap Will Dissolve by 901231 Was Outside Authority.Aslb 910110 Order Is Moot.Appeal Should Be Valid ML20070A0371991-01-0909 January 1991 Licensee Answer to Petitioner Motion for Reconsideration.* Request for Hearing & Intervention Should Be Denied Due to Petitioner Lack of Standing & Timing of Contentions Is Moot. W/Certificate of Svc ML20066D5981990-12-26026 December 1990 Reply to Answers to Petition & Amended Petition.* Intervenor Finds ASLB 901206 Order Premature & Requests That Hearing on Record Be Granted ML20066A2531990-12-21021 December 1990 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Should Not Be Dismissed from Proceeding.* Unless Aslab Denies Appeal Prior to 901231,NEAP Should Show Cause for Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066A1081990-12-19019 December 1990 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proceeding Should Not Be Terminated.* Nuclear Energy Accountability Project Should Be Directed to Show Why Proceeding Should Not Be Terminated, Unless Appeal Denied Prior to 901231.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065T8771990-12-13013 December 1990 Motion to Withdraw.* Withdraws from Proceeding Due to Dissolution of Organization,Effective 901231.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 901213.Granted for Licensing Board on 901212 ML20065T7851990-12-13013 December 1990 Licensee Response to Motion to Withdraw.* Licensee Lack of Objection to Withdrawal of Nuclear Energy Accountability Project from Proceeding Noted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065T7921990-12-0808 December 1990 Motion to Withdraw.* Nuclear Energy Accountability Project Will Be Dissolved Effective 901231.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065T8461990-12-0505 December 1990 Licensee Response to Notices of Change of Address.* Inconsistencies Re Issue of Standing Have Been Injected Into Proceeding by Notices.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062B9861990-10-11011 October 1990 Licensee Opposition to Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Request to Change Location of Oral Argument.* Neap Request to Transfer Location of Oral Argument Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L8401990-09-14014 September 1990 Applicant Response to Memorandum & Order (Motion to Dismiss).* Board Should Not Undertake Sua Sponte Review Due to Board Lacking Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C5021990-08-31031 August 1990 NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Order of 900717.* Requests That Licensing Board Refrain from Raising Sua Sponte Issues ML20059A8941990-08-16016 August 1990 Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Requests That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 900813 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Appeal Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0161990-08-13013 August 1990 Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Board Should Grant Extension of Time to Insure Intervenor Has Opportunity to Fully & Completely Address Issues on Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A8791990-08-13013 August 1990 Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Requests Extension of 15 Days to File Brief in Support of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900817.Granted for Appeal Board on 900817 ML20056B2181990-08-10010 August 1990 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Requests Extension of Time Until 900831 to File Response to Licensing Board 900717 Order,Per 10CFR2.711.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2011990-08-0303 August 1990 Licensee Motion for Leave to Submit Citation to Supplemental Authority.* Licensee Moves for Leave to Call Recent Supreme Court Authority to Attention of Appeal Board.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900803.Granted for Appeal Board on 900803 ML20056A3751990-07-31031 July 1990 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Submit Citation to Supplemental Authority.* NRC Has No Objection to Granting of Licensee 900716 Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056A3821990-07-25025 July 1990 Notice of Appeal.* Requests Oral Argument on Issue of Standing & That Argument Be Held in Miami,Fl to Permit Fair & Equitable Opportunity to Address Issue in Proceeding. W/Certificate of Svc ML20055G6491990-07-16016 July 1990 Licensee Motion for Leave to Submit Citation to Supplemental Authority.* Licensee Moves for Leave to Call Recent Supreme Court Authority to Attention of Appeal Board & Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20055G7851990-07-12012 July 1990 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration.* Advises That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project Has Not Established Standing to Intervene in Proceeding,Therefore, Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20055F5891990-07-0606 July 1990 NRC Staff Response to Motions for Change of Location of Oral Argument.* NRC Does Not See Necessity for Aslab to Depart from Practice of Holding Oral Arguments in Bethesda,Md. Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058K7551990-06-24024 June 1990 Intervenor Motion for Reconsideration of Appeal Board Order Setting Oral Argument.* Requests That Appeal Board Move Oral Argument Scheduled for 900710 in Bethesda,Md to Miami,Fl. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20055D9241990-06-20020 June 1990 Appellant Motion to Move Place of Oral Argument.* Appellant Motion Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043H1801990-06-19019 June 1990 Unopposed Request for 1-day Extension.* Extension Requested in Order to Seek Legal Advise Re Board 900615 Order on Intervention Status.Granted for ASLB on 900619. Served on 900620.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043A6761990-05-17017 May 1990 Applicant Reply to Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Response to ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Neap Petition to Intervene Should Be Denied & Proceeding Dismissed.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20042E6011990-04-20020 April 1990 Intervenors Answer to Applicant 900413 Response & Intervenors Motion for Sanctions Against Applicant & Intervenors Motion for Leave to Amend Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20012F7051990-04-13013 April 1990 Applicant Response to Notice of Withdrawal from Proceeding.* Advises That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) No Longer Has Standing Since Saporito Withdrew from Proceeding & Neap Has Not Established Standing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20011F1081990-02-23023 February 1990 Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief.* Extension Requested to File Brief Due to Intervenor J Lorion Involved W/Family Health Matters.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900226.Granted for Aslab on 900223 ML20011F1151990-02-23023 February 1990 Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief.* Requests 5-day Extension Until 900305 to File Appeal Brief Due to Author Family Health Matters Interfering W/ Ability to Meet Commitments.W/Certificate of Svc ML20006G1171990-02-21021 February 1990 Motion for Reconsideration of Time Extension.* Petitioners Ask That Board Reconsider 900208 Request for Extension of Time Until 900305 to File Amended Petition & Contentions Based on Parties Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl 1998-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
MAY2i>S8>
US'P ~
'
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA le,lent)
'%, g/pp~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ofg,~t Q
~ cl 0 ggfeq p g
~pBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ~1g
- o. l 8g~
'Q +bWy In the matter of Docket Nos. 50-250 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 50-251 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating : (Proposed Amendments t Unit Nos. 3 and 4) Facility Operating License To Permit S team Gener ator Repair )
ANSWER OPPOSING THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Intervenor, Mark P. Oncavage, replies to the Motion For Summary Disposition filed by the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as follows
- Summary disposition should not be granted if the intervenor in his answer shows that there is a genuine issue of fact. 10 C.F.R.g 2; 749(b). The burden is not on the intervenor to prove his case in this answer. His showing need be only "sufficient to require reasonable minds to inquire further." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
~Cor . v. National Resources Defense Council, 435 US 519,554 (1978).
CONTENTION ONE On August 30, 1979 the Intervenor submitted his contentions in this:case to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Contention 1 r,cad:
Whether pursuant to requirements of the
- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
10 CFR Parts 50, 51, the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on 'the proposed operating license (OL) amendments, with spec'ific references to 10 CFR 50.90?
- a. Whether the requirements of the FWPCA.
are met in the form of inclusion in a NEPA cost/benefit analysis?
gg9 81 0 5 29 0'gpss QP p
li g II U
C. 4
(g At the same time the intervenor submitted a proposed Contention 10, which read:
The Commission's NEPA Analysis is inadequate in that it fails to adequately consider the following alternative procedures:
- a. arresting tube support plate corrosion;
- b. in-place tube restoration (sleeving);
C. in-place steam generator tube replacement
- d. derating;
- e. decommissioning:
- f. bioconversi;on; P, ~ conservation;
- h. solar enerpv; i ~ natural gas; or coal k
The staff of the NRC moved to strike both of these conten-tions. It asserted that its previously repaired Environmental Impact Appraisal had sufficiently examined the alternative of decommissioning and that the alternatives of conservati'on and solar entergy were "subsumed" within its consideration of decom-missioning. NRC'taff Statement of Position On Contentions And Notions Totrike dated September 14, 1979 at p. 11. The licensee in its response to Contention 10 admitted that an Environmental Impact Statement would have to consider alternatives as well as contain a cost-benefit analysis. Licensee's Statement Concernin Intervenor's'u ust 30'979 Contentions at p. 10.
The Board in its Order relative to Contentions And Discovery dated September 25, 1979 accepted, the positions of the staff and the licensee and ruled that the proposed Contention 10 fell within Con-tention 1. Order Relative to Contentions And Discover at p. 4. The importance of this history is that the staff, the licensee and the Board all have known, from the beginning of this case that the
~ i intervenor was .
contending that the staff 's NEPA analysis was inadequate because it failed to consider the alternatives listed in proposed Contention 10:
The Board, ignoring its prior order, ruled on April 2, 1981 that Contention 1 was not pleaded with specificity and ordered the intervenor to amend Contention 1 to show how the Final Environmental Statement does not legally or factually comply with NEPA. Memorandum And Order dated April 2, 1981 at p. 4.
The intervenor calls the Board's attention to his predicament.
When -he specifically lists his NEPA contentions the staff, the licensee and the Board all object saying that these contentions are automatically subsumed in a general NEPA contention. On the, other hand, when the intervenor makes a general NEPA contention the, staff, the Board and the licensee all object that his contention is not pleaded with specificity.
In response to the Board's order the intervenor filed his m
Intervenor's Amendment To Contention l. Inasmuch as the initial proposed Contention 10 was already a part of Contention 1, this amendment should be viewed's a supplement to and not a replacement for those specific contentions originally pleaded in proposed Contention 10.
The proposed Contention 10, that became a part of Contention 1, said that the staff's NEPA analysis was invalid because it failed to consider, among, other things: derating, conservation and solar energy as alternatives to the repair. The April 20, 1981 amendment to Contention 1 said that: the analysis of these
\
alteinatives 'is inadequate under NEPA (Paragraph 11) and the EIS
fails to adequately discuss the alternatives to the proposed action (Paragraph 13) .
The derating process is well known to the licensee and the staff of the NRC. There are established procedures for derating these two units which have been a continuous worry to both as the percentage of plugged tubes in the steam generators have increased. The term "conservation", as used in this context, is not an uncertain oi ambiguous one. It has been defined in the Re ort of the Ener Pro'ect at 'the Harvard 'Business School as a combi,nation of curtailment of energy use, overhaul of life and work style and the production of energy efficient consumer and capital goods. Stobaugh and Yergin eds., Re ort of the Ener Pro ect at the Harvard Business School at p. 138 (New York, 1979).
In his Comments on NUREG-0743 Draft Environmental Statemeot for Turke Point Steam Generator Re airs at p. 32, the intervenor sets forth 'the alternative of using the money that would be spent on the project to implement the conservation strategies spelled out in Chapter 6 of the Harvard Report.
The particular types of conservation strategies that can be used with the money saved from derating the units and not under-taking the repairs are set forth in the affidavits of Roger A.
Messinger and John H. Parker that are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively.
Dr. Parker is an Associate Professor of Chemistry and Environ-mental Science .at Florida International University in Miami,
~1 ~ I Florida. He has examined the consumption of FPL's output and determined that 50% is by residential customers. For the average residential customer, 50X of his electrical consumption is for air conditioning.
Dr. Parker has performed experiments showing that Florida is an optimal area for using landscaping on the west and southern exposures of houses to reduce the energy used in air conditioning during the summer months. This landscaping reduces the energy consumed by: 1) reducing the temperature of exposed air conditioning units by shading; 2) reducing the temperature of walls on houses by shading; 3) reducing the'eat gain through windows and 4) cooling of the houses through evapotranspiration.
The use of this method of conservation for 100,000 houses in Florida would result in a. reduction in utility system requirements of 260 megawatts. In examining this figure it should be remembered that the capacity of each of the units at Turkey Point is 660 megawatts, that historically they have operated at 65K of capacity and that even after the repairs they are expected to run at an average of 85K of capacity.
Dr. Parker's affidavit notes that the Seasonal Electrical Efficiency Rating (SEER) of air conditioners can be increased from the present average of 5 to an SEER of 10. For 300,000 houses thi;s would reduce the system demand by 220 megawatts.
Timers can be placed on hot water heaters to reduce the consumption of electricity for hot water between 12 noon and 9 p.m.
For every 100.,000 customers who used these timers the system
S' demand would be reduced by 90 megawatts.
At 85% of capaci ty one unit at Turkey Point has a capacity of approximately 561 megawatts. The three procedures described above would reduce the required system demand by 570 megawatts.
At the unit cost of $ 700 cited by Dr. Parker, the cost of lands cap ing for 100,000 residences would come to $ 70 MILLION.
At the unit cost of 9270 cited by Dr. Parker, the cost of doubling the SEER of residential air conditioners for 300,000 resi'dences would be 981 MI'J.LION. The cost of installing 100,000 hot water timers at 935 each is $ 3.5 MILLION. For a total of $ 154.5 MILLION, the energy demand on the FPL system could be reduced by an amount greater than the total generating capacity of one of the units at Turkey Point. Even the most. optimistic estimate of the repairs indicates that the cost will be $ 468 MILLION. See Final Environ-mental Statement at p. 4.-14. One half of that figure is $ 234 MILLION.
Intervenor does not concede that the staff's estimate of the costs of the repair is correct. He asserts that. his analysis, at page 19-23 of his Comments on NUREG-0743, showing a total figure of
$ 731.MILLION is much closer to the actual cost of this proj ect.
Dr. Roger A. Messinger is an associate professor of electrical engineering at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida.
Dr. Messinger has examined the use of energy in the commercial sector where he has found the demand for electricity divided almost equally between lighting and airconditioning. It is his opinion that new lighting technology enables, commercial establish-ments to use " only 1 watt per square foot in their lighting as l
II
~ ~
opposed to the presently used 5 watts. His analysis of .commercial air conditioning indicates .that for a 3 ton air conditioner an investment of 91000 in 10 kilowatt heat stripping the seasonal peak load can be reduced by more than half. The avoidance cost of the more efficient air conditioner would be less than 9200 per kilowatt with an added bonus of consuming. nearly 5,000 kilowatt hours per year less in electricty. At a cost of $ 468 MILLION and an operating efficiency at 85%, the cost per kilowatt of capacity of the proposed repair comes to approximately 9240.
The Final Environmental Statement disposes of the alternative of derating and conservation in one paragraph. where it says:
In the absence of methods to arrest or greatly reduce denting, the continuation of operation for an extended period in the present mode is impractical. With tube degradation and plugging continuing at the present rate, the units would of necessity likely be derated as discussed earlier in Section 4.2. FPL has estimated the cost of replacement power. Consequently, as discussed in Section 4.2, the present value cost of derating Turkey Point Units 3 and' would be about $ 840,000,000 for the first ten years. Also, the person-rem cost of occupational exposure during the inspection and plugging of degraded tubes would continue.
FES at p. 5-1.
Absolutely no analysis has been made by the NRC staff of investing the .money saved from not perfoming these repairs in landscaping, insulating, more efficient air conditioning, timers on water heaters, advanced technology for commercial lighting or heat strips for commercial air conditioners.
In Save, The Nairobi River Association v. Andrus 483 F.
Supp. 844 (D.'ep. 1979), the Army:Corps of Engineers had proposed
0 the building of a dam. In preparing its Final Environment State-ment, the Corps failed to analyze the alternative of investing the project funds in developing methods of improving livestock and crop production so that the water usage from irrigation could be reduced enough to allow normal ground reservoirs to accomodate agricultural needs without a dam. The U.S. District Court found that the FES was inadequate.
In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor . v. NRDC, supra, the U.S.,Supreme Court placed the NRC on notice that in the future the question of energy conservation was to be considered as an alternative in preparing environmental impact statements. The court noted that prior to 1973 there was little serious thought in government circles of energy conservation alternatives, but that the concept of "alternatives" is an evolving one, requiring the agency to explore more or fewer alternatives as they become better known and under-stood 435 U.S. at 552-553 In Vermont Yankee, the Supreme Court approved the threshold test for examining the alternatives of conservation that the al-ternative be readily available, that it curtail the demand for electricity to the extent of the proposed project and that it be susceptible of a reasonable degree of proof. As Drs. Messinger and Parker have shown, the technology presently exists-, it can replace the power to be'roduced by the repairs and it is sus-ceptible of proof.
Congress has directed that the requirements of NEPA shall be followed to the fullest extent possible. 42 U.S.C. 84232.
0 Under subsection l(c) of the statute, the NRC staff is required to prepare a detailed statement of alternatives to the proposed project. The agency is not merely to glance over this- Congre-ssional directive, but is required to take a "hard look" at the consequenses.of each alternative. Kle e v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 fon 21 (1976).
The examination of alternatives are the heart of an environ-mental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. 81502.14. The environmental statement should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear-.basis for choice among options by the decision .
maker and the public 40 C.F.R. 81502.14 This analysis shall Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail in-cluding the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their compara-tive merits 40 C.F.R. 81502,14(b)
NEPA was designed to insure a fully informed and well consi-dered decision. Str cker's Ba Nei hborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227 (1980). The purpose of the EXS is to allow both the public and interested government departments to conveniently monitor and criticize the agency's action. Grazin Fields Farm
- v. Goldschmidt, 626 F';2d 1068, 1973 (1st Cir. 1980). It is to assist the endeavors of watchdogs who could reasonably be expected to .publicize environmental issues and to promote propogation of information and sustenance of debate. Grazin Fields Farm, supra at 1073-1074.
0 NEPA is to serve as an environmental full disclosure law.
Public Service Com an v. Nuclear Re ulator Commission, 583 F.2d 77, 81 foo 17 (1st Cir. 1978). The final environmental impact statement represents an accessible means for opening up the agency decisionmaking,process and subjecting it to critical evaluation by those outside the agency, includin the ublic.
Environmental Defense Fund v. Froehlke, 473 F.2d 346, 351 (8th Cir. 1972).
NEPA is premised on the assumption that all reasonable alternatives will be explored by the responsible agency. Con-cerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817., 825 (D.C. Cir.
1977). Those alternatives will include all. appropriate methods of accomplishing 'the aim of the action, including those outside the agency' expertise and .regulatory control. Environmental Defense Fund v. Cor. s,of Engineers, 492 F.2d 1123, 1135 (5th Cir. 1974). The analysis is to be i.ndependent and in-depth.
Swain v. Brine ar, '517 F.2d 766, 780 (7th Cir. 1975). .An agency cannot abdicate its statutory duties by reflexively rubber stamping a statement make by others. The agency must independently perform its reviewing, analytical and judgment functions. Sierra'lub v,. L n 502 F.2d 42, '59 (5th Cir. 1974)
It is absolutely essential to NEPA that the 'EXS provide the decisionmaker with a detailed and careful analysis, of the relative environmental merits and demerits of the proposed action and possible alternatives, NRDC v. Cal~lalsa . 524 F. 2d 79, 92 (2nd Cir. 1975) that allows him, as a responsible executive, to arrive s
at a reasonably accurate and informed decision: regarding the benefits" and" detriments to be expected from program implementation.
Sierra Club v. Yarton, '486 F.2d 946, 950 (7th Cir. 1973) .
~l The staff has ignored the commands of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality to present the benefits of the alternatives and the project in comparative and'etriments form. It has also failed to present a detailed analysis of the alternatives of derating and conservation that would permit a responsible executive to make an accurate and'nformed decision.
Instead of making an independent and in-depth, analysis, it has accepted as gospel the licensee's assertion that the cost of derating will be $ 840 MILLION and dismissed this alternative in one paragraph without reviewing the assertion; collecting the available date on productive conservation; analyzing the detriments and. benefits of landscaping, insulation, heat stripping, electri-cal efficiency improvements, timers on water heaters or improved commercial lighting technology; and making its own judgment on which alternative is best.
The statement fails as a full disclosure vehicle. It does not promote critical evaluation of the agency's decision by the public. It propogates no information on this very real alterna-tive and can hardly be seen as providing sustenance for a debate on the issue of productive conservation as an alternative to this repair project.
This contention, that the alternative of derating the plant and investing the money from the project in active, conservation has not been adequately presented in the Final Environmental Statement presents a genuine issue of fact.
CONTENTION 4(b)
The staff"s motion for summary disposition on Contention 4(b) and 'the licensee's response. fail to address the gravamen
0 ~ ~
j t
'
~h
of the intervenor's content'ion. That contention is outlined in the affidavits of Douglas King and Leonard Pardue that are attached to this answer as Exhibits C and D.
The licensee is limited, starting in October, 1981, to disposing only 57 cubic meters per month of radioa'ctive waste at the Barnwell, South Carolina disposal site. This, totals to 684 cubic meters per year. The normal amount of solid waste produced
-by the operations at Turkey Point is 575 cubic meters per unit per year. The repairs will generate between 1100 and 2300 cubic meters of solid waste, excluding the lawn assemblies. It is fairly obvious that all of the'olid waste cannot, be shipped to Barnwell and some must be kept on site.
The solid waste on site at Turkey Point is kept in d..ums.
The drums are not fastened down or covered and are subject to weathering. These drums will be on site not only during the repair period but long after. The affidavit of Leonard Pardue shows that when a hurricane strikes the Turkey Point area, the loosely stacked drums will be scattered and can receive mechanical shocks from collissions with other subjects.
There is a genuine- issue of fact that these stacked drums, filled with radioactive waste, will be the cause of radioactive
, releases, DATED: 3~ day of MAY, 1981.
LAW OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.
Attorneys for Intervenors 1400 Amerifirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Tele: (305) 377-3023 BY:.
NEIL CHONIN
t