Similar Documents at Fermi |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARNRC-99-0093, Comment on Prs 10CFR30,31,32,170 & 171 Re Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Matl. Licensee Unclear Whether Requirements Apply to Holder of Operating License1999-10-12012 October 1999 Comment on Prs 10CFR30,31,32,170 & 171 Re Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Matl. Licensee Unclear Whether Requirements Apply to Holder of Operating License NRC-99-0080, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Plans.Detroit Edison Strongly Urges NRC to Not Issue Amend to 10CFR50.471999-09-13013 September 1999 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Plans.Detroit Edison Strongly Urges NRC to Not Issue Amend to 10CFR50.47 NRC-99-0071, Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083, Content of Ufsar,Iaw 10CFR50.71(e), Dtd Dec 19981999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083, Content of Ufsar,Iaw 10CFR50.71(e), Dtd Dec 1998 ML20205A8321999-03-26026 March 1999 Initial Decision (License Granted to Sp O'Hern).* Orders That O'Hern Be Given Passing Grade for Written Portion of Reactor Operator License Exam Administered on 980406.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990326.Re-serve on 990330 ML20205A7871999-03-26026 March 1999 Error in LBP-99-16.* Informs That Footnote 2 on Pp 16 of LBP-99-16 Should Be Deleted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990329 ML20202B1561999-01-28028 January 1999 Memorandum & Order (Required Filing for Sp O'Hern).* Petitioner Should Document,With Citations to Record, Precisely Where He Disagrees or Agrees with Staff by 990219. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990128 NRC-98-0154, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Detroit Edison Fully Supports Comments Being Submitted on Proposed Rule by NEI1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Detroit Edison Fully Supports Comments Being Submitted on Proposed Rule by NEI ML20198B1131998-12-17017 December 1998 Memorandum & Order (Request for an Extension of Time).* Orders That Staff May Have Until 990115 to File Written Presentation.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981217 NRC-98-0184, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps. Expresses Concern That Proposed Rule,As Drafted,Will Impose Significant Regulatory Burden on NPPs Which Have Already Developed Risk Programs1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps. Expresses Concern That Proposed Rule,As Drafted,Will Impose Significant Regulatory Burden on NPPs Which Have Already Developed Risk Programs ML20197J8971998-12-14014 December 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Sp O'Hern Written Presentation.* Staff Requests That Motion for Extension of Time Until 990115 to File Written Presentation Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20154M8281998-10-20020 October 1998 Federal Register Notice of Hearing.* Grants Sp O'Hern 980922 Request for Hearing Re Denial of O'Hern Application to Operate Nuclear Reactor.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981020 ML20154M9471998-10-19019 October 1998 Memorandum & Order (Establishing Schedule for Case).* Grants Request for Hearing Filed on 980922 by O'Hern & Orders O'Hern to Specify Exam Questions to Be Discussed at Hearing by 981103.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981019 ML20154K8601998-10-14014 October 1998 NRC Staff Response to Request for Hearing Filed by Applicant Sp O'Hern.* Request Re Denial of Application for Senior Operator License Filed in Timely Manner.Staff Does Not Object to Granting Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20154F0551998-10-0808 October 1998 Designation of Presiding Officer.* Pb Bloch Designated as Presiding Officer & Rf Cole Designated to Assist Presiding Officer in Hearing Re Denial of Sp O'Hern RO License.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981008 NRC-98-0035, Comment on Draft RG DG-5008 (Rev 2 to Reg Guide 5.62), Reporting of Safeguards Events. Util Endorses Industry Comments Submitted by NEI1998-03-0909 March 1998 Comment on Draft RG DG-5008 (Rev 2 to Reg Guide 5.62), Reporting of Safeguards Events. Util Endorses Industry Comments Submitted by NEI NRC-98-0010, Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in NPP1998-02-17017 February 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in NPP NRC-98-0030, Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane Re Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public1998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane Re Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public NRC-98-0012, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 70 Re Exemption from Criticality Accident Requirements. Detroit Edison Concerned That Proposed Changes Will Not Provide Sufficient Flexibility Meeting Regulations to Criticality Monitoring1998-01-0202 January 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 70 Re Exemption from Criticality Accident Requirements. Detroit Edison Concerned That Proposed Changes Will Not Provide Sufficient Flexibility Meeting Regulations to Criticality Monitoring NRC-97-0096, Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 19971997-09-29029 September 1997 Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 1997 NRC-97-0078, Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 19971997-08-0606 August 1997 Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 1997 ML20112G8451996-06-11011 June 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reporting Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment NRC-96-0024, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Radioactive Matl.Util Supports Need for NRC to Be Promptly Informed of Incidents Involving Intentional Misuse of Licensed Matl1996-02-28028 February 1996 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Radioactive Matl.Util Supports Need for NRC to Be Promptly Informed of Incidents Involving Intentional Misuse of Licensed Matl NRC-96-0010, Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Potassium Iodide1996-02-12012 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Potassium Iodide NRC-95-0131, Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-62 Re Changes to QA Program.Agrees That Changes Needed in Process for QA Program Revs1995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-62 Re Changes to QA Program.Agrees That Changes Needed in Process for QA Program Revs NRC-95-0107, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors1995-10-12012 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors NRC-95-0103, Comment on Draft Reg Guide & NRC Bulletin, Potential Plugging of ECCS Strainers for Debris in Bwr. Supports Points That Bulletin Should Include Option of Justifying Operability of Currently Installed Passive Strainers1995-10-0202 October 1995 Comment on Draft Reg Guide & NRC Bulletin, Potential Plugging of ECCS Strainers for Debris in Bwr. Supports Points That Bulletin Should Include Option of Justifying Operability of Currently Installed Passive Strainers 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 NRC-95-0080, Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits1995-07-21021 July 1995 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits NRC-95-0078, Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval1995-07-14014 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval NRC-95-0079, Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial1995-07-13013 July 1995 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial NRC-95-0073, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR70 Re Change to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control1995-06-0909 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR70 Re Change to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control NRC-95-0056, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing1995-05-0808 May 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing NRC-95-0042, Comment Supporting Draft Policy Statement Re Freedom of Employees in Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns W/O Fear of Retaliation1995-04-10010 April 1995 Comment Supporting Draft Policy Statement Re Freedom of Employees in Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns W/O Fear of Retaliation NRC-95-0047, Comment on GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety Related Power-Operated Gate Valves. Draft GL Should Be Revised to Permit Some Use of Plant Operating Experience as Basis for Engineering Judgement1995-03-27027 March 1995 Comment on GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety Related Power-Operated Gate Valves. Draft GL Should Be Revised to Permit Some Use of Plant Operating Experience as Basis for Engineering Judgement NRC-95-0007, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Proposed Policy Statement on Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities1995-02-0707 February 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Proposed Policy Statement on Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities NRC-94-0145, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Np Reactors.All Util Outages Currently Controlled by Defense in Depth Philosophy Implemented by Operations & Work Control Group1995-01-11011 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Np Reactors.All Util Outages Currently Controlled by Defense in Depth Philosophy Implemented by Operations & Work Control Group NRC-95-0001, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR21 Re Procurement of Commercial Grade Items by NPP Licensees1995-01-0909 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR21 Re Procurement of Commercial Grade Items by NPP Licensees NRC-94-0130, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal1994-12-0909 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal NRC-94-0128, Comment Supporting & Opposing Sections of Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of NPP Security Requirements for an Internal Threat,1994-12-0707 December 1994 Comment Supporting & Opposing Sections of Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of NPP Security Requirements for an Internal Threat, NRC-94-0106, Comment Supporting NUMARC Responses Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy1994-11-30030 November 1994 Comment Supporting NUMARC Responses Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy NRC-94-0100, Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants.Endorses NEI Response to Ref 2 Submitted to NRC on 9410031994-10-13013 October 1994 Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants.Endorses NEI Response to Ref 2 Submitted to NRC on 941003 NRC-94-0074, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to fitness-for-duty Requirements.Recommends That Random Testing Scope Remain Same1994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to fitness-for-duty Requirements.Recommends That Random Testing Scope Remain Same NRC-94-0070, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Changes to Security Program & Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Reviews & Audit Frequency.Util Believes Further Rule Changes Should Be Made1994-07-19019 July 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Changes to Security Program & Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Reviews & Audit Frequency.Util Believes Further Rule Changes Should Be Made ML20070P1161994-04-18018 April 1994 Comments on DE LLRW Onsite & Radwaste Disposal NRC-93-0149, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at NPP1993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at NPP NRC-93-0145, Comment on NUMARC Petition for Rulemaking PRM 21-2, Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation. Concurs W/ Petition1993-12-15015 December 1993 Comment on NUMARC Petition for Rulemaking PRM 21-2, Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation. Concurs W/ Petition NRC-93-0144, Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058,Rev 2, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of Us Nrc. Concurs W/Comments Submitted by NUMARC1993-12-0606 December 1993 Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058,Rev 2, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of Us Nrc. Concurs W/Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20059L3211993-11-24024 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.120 Re Establishment, Implementation & Maintenance of Training Program NRC-93-0068, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercises from Annual to Biennial1993-05-0505 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercises from Annual to Biennial DD-92-08, Director'S Decision DD-92-08 Re Enforcement Actions to Be Taken Against Util Due to Allegations Presented by Gap. Petition Denied1992-11-25025 November 1992 Director'S Decision DD-92-08 Re Enforcement Actions to Be Taken Against Util Due to Allegations Presented by Gap. Petition Denied 1999-09-13
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20197J8971998-12-14014 December 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Sp O'Hern Written Presentation.* Staff Requests That Motion for Extension of Time Until 990115 to File Written Presentation Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20154K8601998-10-14014 October 1998 NRC Staff Response to Request for Hearing Filed by Applicant Sp O'Hern.* Request Re Denial of Application for Senior Operator License Filed in Timely Manner.Staff Does Not Object to Granting Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20235Y8981987-07-21021 July 1987 Licensee Response to Petition of Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan & Sisters,Servants of Immaculate Heart of Mary Congregation.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101T3391985-01-28028 January 1985 Petition to Institute Proceeding on &/Or Investigative Actions Into Safety Matters at Facility,Per 10CFR2.206 & 2.202.Low Power/Fuel Loading License Should Not Be Issued Until Listed Safety Allegations Resolved ML20076K2271983-07-0707 July 1983 Answer Opposing Citizens for Employment & Energy 830622 Petition for Review of Aslab 830602 Decision ALAB-730, Affirming ASLB 821029 Initial Decision LBP-82-96 Re OL Issuance.Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072E9561983-06-22022 June 1983 Petition for Review of ASLAP 830602 Decision Affirming ASLB 821029 Decision Authorizing Issuance of full-power Ol.Monroe County Does Not Have Radiological Emergency Response Plan & Will Not Implement Draft.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20064N8131983-02-0909 February 1983 Brief Appealing ASLB 821029 Initial Decision.Monroe County Has Not Adopted Emergency Evacuation Plan.Board Findings on Contention 8 Erroneous & Should Be Reversed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070H3861982-12-22022 December 1982 Response in Opposition to Citizens for Employment & Energy Response to ASLB 821122 Order to Show Cause Why Appeal from 821029 Initial Decision Should Not Be Summarily Dismissed for Failure to File Proposed Findings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066K6521982-11-23023 November 1982 Brief Opposing Monroe County,Mi 821108 Appeal of ASLB 821029 Initial Decision Denying County 820827 late-filed Petition to Intervene.Intervention Petition Correctly Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9131982-11-21021 November 1982 Answer to Aslab 821112 Order to Show Cause.Filing of Proposed Findings & Remedy of Default Is Optional.Remedy Should Not Be Invoked.Complaint of Aslab Is Only Procedural ML20066K9471982-11-21021 November 1982 Answer Supporting Monroe County,Mi 821108 Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Pleadings.Aslab Should Advise County & Citizens for Employment & Energy of Rules Re Appeal of Intervention Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066E3051982-11-0808 November 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 821029 Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065B2541982-09-10010 September 1982 Requests Extension Until 820920 to Respond to County of Monroe,Mi 820827 Petition to Intervene.Time for Answer Should Be Calculated from Date Petition Mailed to Counsel of Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M0251981-12-11011 December 1981 Response Supporting NRC 811116 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20004F4041981-06-0202 June 1981 Requests Extension Until 840630 for Facility Completion,Due to Delays & Difficulties in Regulatory Process,Including Regulatory Review Hiatus & Impact of Responding to post-TMI Requirements ML19209A9121979-08-20020 August 1979 Answer in Opposition to Citizens for Energy & Employment 790807 Motion for Change in Discovery Schedule.Delay Will Cause Financial & Planning Difficulties for Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19208A0311979-07-19019 July 1979 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue,In Support of Util 790719 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 11.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19208A0281979-07-19019 July 1979 Consolidated Motion to Compel Citizens for Employment & Energy to Answer 790327 Interrogatories 2-6 & for Summary Disposition of Contention 11.Contention Does Not State Genuine Issue ML19225A5151979-06-25025 June 1979 Detroit Edison Objections to Citizens for Employment & Energy Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents Served on 790525.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027A5541978-12-15015 December 1978 Applicants' Answer to First Amended Intervention Petition of Citizens for Employment & Energy. Requests Cee Intervention Petition Be Denied ML20027A5191978-12-0404 December 1978 Amended Petition to Intervene in Matter of Proc Re Subj Facil.Incl Identification of Petitioner & Its Interests to Be Affected,Interests Adversely Affected by Action of Comm & Statement of Contentions ML20027A4671978-11-22022 November 1978 Applicant De'S Consolidated Answer to Intervention Petitions of M & D Drake & Cee.Asserts Petitions Should Be Denied Since Neither Satisfy 10CFR2.714 Re Interests of the Petitioners.Cert of Svc Encl ML20027A2821978-10-27027 October 1978 Citizens for Employment & Energy Response to Applicants Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery Against Petitions Drake & Cee & Alternative Request for Waiver. Urges Motion Be Denied.Cert of Svc Encl ML20027A2091978-10-20020 October 1978 Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery Against Drake & Cee & Alternative Request for Waiver.Discovery Necessary to Determine Whether Drake & Cee Have Necessary Interests Required for Intervention ML20027A2181978-10-20020 October 1978 Applicant Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Drake & Cee Petitions Until 2 Wks After Date Applicant Received Last Transcript of Depositions ML20076A6351978-10-10010 October 1978 Petition to Intervene on Basis That Entire State of Mi Will Be Affected by Safety & Economic Health of Plant & Many Unresolved Safety Issues Exist ML20076A6161978-10-0909 October 1978 Petition to Intervene Re Proposed Facility.Intervention Sought on Basis of Health & Safety of Residents of Area Near Proposed Facility,Environ Concerns & Util Financial Qualifications ML20027A1921978-09-15015 September 1978 Alleges That Recent Notice of Hearing & Newspaper Ads Re Intervention in Hearings by Citizens as Individuals Defective,Based on Fact That Right of Local Govts to Participate Not Brought to Attention of Local Units ML20027A2151978-02-0101 February 1978 Amended Petition to Stop Northern Michigan Electric,Inc Sale of Part Interest in Facility 1998-12-14
[Table view] |
Text
_ _
- s 1 UNITED STATES OF KERICA NUCLEAR REGULKIORY COK4ISSION DCLffi,ED BEEORE THE A'IGiIC SAFEIY AND IlCENSING APPEAL BOARD
'83 FEB 15 A!0:11 In the Matter of )
^
) ._
THE DEI'ROIT EDISON CD1PANY, et al. ) Docket to. 50-341'_.
)
(Enrico Fermi Atmic_ Power Plant, )
Unit 2) )
CEE'S BRIEF ON APPEAL Citizens For Employment and Energy was admitted as a intervenor in this proceedings on January 2, 1979. CEE participated in an adjudicatory hearing before the Licensing Board on March 31, April 1, and April 2, 1982. The Initial Decision was issued on October 29, 1982. CES timely appealed that Decision and filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision on Noverrber 8,1982.
d I. Monroe County Has Not Adopted An Emercency Evacuation Plan. -
Monroe County sought leave to intervene on these pt - M ngs and was denied ,
that permission by the Licensing Board on October 29, 1982. CEE's Answer supported the County. The County's intervention pctition was related to a number of ?
emergency planning probl e s outside of the County's control. The decision of the
' Licensing Board was affinned in part and modified by the Appeal Board on Deceber <
31, 1982. The Appeal Board referred the County's petition to the irector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to be treated as a 10 E R 2.206 petition.
In its appeal, the County pointed out that the Licensing board was in error when it found in the Initial Decision, paragraph 63, p. 40, that the County has "a cmpleted version of the plan." A draft version of the plan 1
8302160343 830209 ,, p DRADOCK05000g gh
's a was suhritted to FDR in Novenber of 1981, for informal review. The Comty has never adopted a final version of the p' tan. However, in a letter dated March 22, 1982, but not received by FDR until September 15, 1982, the Michigan State Police requested formal review of the plan by FDR. 47 Federal Pegister 47321, October 25, 1982. In violation of Michigan law, FCIA 30.401 ff., the State Police forwarded the plan as though it had been approved by the County. On the contrary, the County has not done so to this date.
If the Appeal Board has any doubts about this question, verification can be obtained fran the County.
The significance of this error in the Licensing Board's Initial Decision will be discussed infra.
II. The Licensing Board Erroneously Struec CEE'S Contentien Relating 'Ib Emergency Planning And Evacuation.
In its Amended Petition to Intervene, CEE's Contention #8 raised the broad issue of erergency planning. The Contention read as follows:
- 8. Emergency plans and procedures have not been adequately developed or entirely conceived with respect to an accident which could require inmediate evacuations of entire towns within a 100-mile radius of the Fermi 2 plant, including Detroit. In particular, CEE is concerned over whether there is a feasible escape route for the residents of the Stony Pointe area which is adjacent to the Fermi 2 site. The only road leading to and fran the area, Pointe Aux Peauz, lies very close to the reactor site. In case of an accident the residents would have to travel towards the accident before they could move away fran it.
On January 2, 1979 the Licensing Board struck all of Contention #8, except t.he, portion related to Stony Point, because it was "too broadly written and not supported by any information which would warrant a conclusion that such plans i -
are necessary." 9 NRC 73, 80-81 (1979) .
t l -
l l
r
In the Initial Decision, paragrapho 80-81, pp. 49-50, the Board said, in answering CEE's Motion to Reopen the Record, that CEE had voluntarily relinquished its right to litigate Contention #8. In light of the Board's adverse ruling on January 2, 1979, the fact that CEE did not seek to resurrect the broad issue of emergency planning in the stipulated contentions of March 5, 1979 or in the second prehearing conference on July 22, 1981, does not lead to the conclusion that CEE relirquished anything. CEE was simply abiding by the Board's ruling of January 2, 1979. That ruling was not appealable in an interlocutory manner, and could only le appealed after the issuance of the Initial Decision. 10 CFR 2.730(f); 2.760; 2.762. Pennsylvania Power and Light Canoany, ALAB-641,13 NRC 550 (1981); Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co., ALAB 633,13 NRC 94 (1981) . The ruling disrcissing most of Contention #8 was erroneous.
Generally, reasoncble specificity is required of intervenors' contentions.
10 CFR 2.714(b) . However, the adequacy of off-site emergency plans for units of local goverment are appropriate issues for a Licensing Board adjudicatory hearing. 10 CFR 50.47(a) . Since the energency evacuation plans were not yet written, it was error for the Board to severely limit Contention #8. Instead, the Board should have allowed the contention conditionally, subject to further clarificationwhen the off-site plans were written.
In Duke Power Ccmocny, LBP 82-16, 15 NRC 566 (1982), another Licensing Board
- faced this very same issue. Instead of outright dismissal of the contentions there, the Board admitted conditic.nally. As the Board said in rejecting the Applicants' and Staff's argtraents regarding specificity
Apparently in recognition of the unfairness in such a squeeze play, it has not been uncmmon for licensing boards to admit vague contentions conditionally, sub-ject to later specification, or to defer rulings on scme contentions until the necessary documentation is available. 15 NRC at 572.
g ,,~w. - - .----,-g
,- - , w r w--
- i" The Board went on to explain a number of reasons why spzcificity in these circumstances, before an off-site plan was even written, was unreasonable.
There are several practical reasons to reject this argument. In the first place, it is very difficult to express concrete concerns about m ergency planning in the abstract, without reference to specific s er-gency plans. It is probably a waste of time for all concerned, including this Board, for intervenors to develope ' concerns' that mergency planners, working independently, may be fully addressing. The sensible approach is for a potential intervenor first to study proposed mergency plans, and then to decide whether he finds flaws in Gem which he may wish to contest.
Moreover, for;ing intervenors to shoot in the dark may encourage fabricadon of artificial, frivolous and perhaps even spurious contentions, because by necessity they a e based on little more than imag-ination. 15 NRC at 573.
The Board also found that precluding off-site emergency planning issues frm the adjudicatory hearing process would violate the Atmic Energy Act. Congress did not intend to limit the right of the public to litigate health and safety issues under the Atmic Energy Act. The Act unequivocally requires that in any proceeding for the issuance of a license, the Ccmnission must grant a hearing to l any party whose interest may be affected by the proceeding. 42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) .
! Under long-established Ccmnission practice, those hearings must be formal adjudica-tions in conformance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Siegel v. Atmic a
Energy Ccmnission, 400 F.2d 778, 784 (D.C. Cir. ,1968) . The scope of the hearing l
offered must include "all relevant matters" [Siegel, supra, at 785], and a hearing can be avoided only where "there are no material facts in dispute." Public Service Cmpany of New Hampshire v. FERC 600 F.2d 944, 955 (D.C. Cir., 1979). The suffi-l l ciency of offsite mergency planning is highly relevant to thedeterminationwhich must be made before a license can issue that such a license will not be irdmical l
l l
l
to the public health and safety. 42 U.S.C. 2113(d) . The evaluation of off-site plans involves material factual issues which intervenors are entitled to dispute under the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, to withdraw off-site plannin frm licensing adjudications and allow their resolution by the Staff, as this decision permits, would constitute a h3atant violation of 5189a and the Admini-strative Procedure Act, and would deny CEE due process in the litigation of lice-conditions. Moreover, licensing boards may not delegate contested matters to th Staff for posthearing resolution. See Public Service Cmpany of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1), AIAB-461, 7 NRC 313, 318 (1978);
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-59,14 NRC 12 (1981). The decision in effect allows a full power license to be issued by the Staff, in violation of the ccnmission's requirment that licensing boards resolve [ contested licensing issues] openly and on the record after giving the parties . . . an oppor-tunity to cument or otherwise be hard.
Cleveland Electric Illuttinating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
IAAB-298, 2 NRC 730, 736-7 (1976) .
Here, as in Duke Power, CEE Contention #8 relating to off-site planning sho; have been admitted conditional 3v and the hearing on it deferred until such time i
, Monroe County adopts a plan. Since the County has not yet done so, the issue is t
- not even ripe for hearing. Such a bifurcated adjudicatory hearing is not an un-l reasonable burden on the Licensing Board or the parties in light of the signific.
of safety planning issues and the right to litigate th m. The Boards could simp hold tne record open on off-site planni g until the plan was produced and decide any other issues in the meantime. See also Union of Concerned Scientists Petiti r
1 j For Ralemaking Re: 10 CFR 50.47, 47 FR 51889, Novmber M,1982, and supporting doctnentation.
The decision of the Licensing Board of January 2, 1979, dismissing CEE's 2
contention #8 should be reversed, and 's. case should be renanded to the Licensing Board for a hearing on off-site emyancy planning issues to be held after Monroe County approves a plan.
III. The Liceruing Board Erred In Finding That 'Ihere Was A Feasible Escape ibute For The Residents of Stony Point.
In Paragraphs 41-57, pp. 25-37, of the Initial Decision, the Licensing Board detailed the testimony regarding the evacuation of Stony Point. CEE took exceptions, Numbers 16-24, to those findings. As the Board said at Paragraph 41, p.24:
The parties viewed this Contention as alleging that Pointe Aux Peaux Road is not an adequate evacuation route for the residents of Stony Point. There was no dispute as to whether Pointe Aux Peaux Road lies close to the reactor - it clearly does - or whether it is the sole evacuation route frm Stony Point - it clearly is - or whether in using the Road the residents of Stony Point would be forced to move toward j the reactor before moving away frm the reactor - they
- . clearly would. The sole issue was whether, given these l fact , the road is a feasible evacuation route.
The Board found that nothing about Pointe Aux Peaux Road itself made it unique so that it was infeasible as an evacuation route. Paragraphs 49-50, pp. 30-31. The l Board discounted the significances of accidents or weather. .Id. The Board also found that evacuation along the road could be accmplished within 1 to 2h hours a
which was reasonable. Faragraphs 44-48, pp. 25-30. The Board also found that travelling on the direction of the reactor did not render the evacuation route .
infeasible. Paragraph 57, pp. 36-37.
The finding that Stony Point could be evacuated within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> was erroneous.
Pointe Aux Peaux Road is the only way in and out of Stony Point. An accident blocking the road would bring the evacuation Lo a halt for*as long'as it'took to clear it.
. - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . ,...-_-..m ,. , _. . - _ , _ _ _ _ , , , , _ . , , - - . - . . _ , , . _ . - . , _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . .
There are no alternate routes. The Applicant's witnesses, Ms. Madsen and Mr. Kanen, relied upon the Monroe County Emergency Plan as the basis for their conclusion that an accident would not block the road for long. Tr. 420-423.
However, in its findings the Board concluded that mergency evacuation plan issues were outside the sccpe of the contention. How this could be so when the witnesses, whose conclusions the Board accepted, relied on a plan in draft fom escapes a rational analysis. The witnesses did not consider the availability of police and equipnent in reaching their conclusions.about the time needed for evacuation, but relied upon the adequacy of the County's plan. (Tr. 423-424).
As was pointed out above, the plan is only in draft fom and if full cf probles, scme of which the County noted in its intervention pleadings.
If only one lane was blocked, the route becmes inadequate because workers returning hme, vehicles to transport handicapped persons and those without trans-partation cannot enter Stony Point. For Pointe Aux Peaux Road to be considered
" feasible" it must be available to traffic leaving and entering Stony Point. A simple road repair closing one lane would render the Pointe Aux Peaux Road not feasible for evacuation.
Workers returning to Stony Point to secure their hmes and evacuate their families, buses to transport those without private vehicles and special transport for the handica,oped becmes significant for another reason. To insure a timely evacuation with the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> limit accepted by Board, it would be necessary to l
establish the time needed for the workers to return hme, buses to enter Stony Point and handicapped persons safely transported. The Padsen and Kanen testimony failed to take all of these factors into their studies of time estimates, r
I
Kanen states that no dmographics have been done to establish where residients are m ployed p. 420. Madsen states she has no knowledge of handicapped persons in Stony Point. P. 409. Kanen also shows no knowledge of handicapped persons (p. 413). Kanen estimates that 50 to 70 per.ple would need public transportation in order to evacuate (p. 413) . Yet there is no estilrate of the time frame necessary to provide this transportation.
The Staff's witnesses, Mr. Urbanek and Mr. Kantor echoed the reasonableness of the 21s hours tire estimate. Mr. Urbanek considered the proble of weather, but like the other witnesses did so inadequately. Urbanek. ff. Tr. 533. None of the witnesses estimated the possible additional delays due to r*M visibilitt,r and %e increased likelihood of accidents in heavy rain, snow, or fog. With only one road in and out, the signficance of those probles is magnified greatly, at least for the citizens of Stony Point if not for Edison and Staff. Ironically, on the night of the public hearing on the controlled exercise of the ~ draft plan, February 3,1982, there was a snowstonn. The State Police, who conducted the hearing and refused the County's request to adjourn it, i:.unically also issued a " red alert", ordering all but mergency vehicles off the roads. Situations like that would wreak havoc on the rosy evacuation time estimates the Board l
erroneously adopted.
In addition, the residents of Stony Point most travel in the direction of the reactor in ordar to evacuate. Id., Paragraph 51, p. 31. As the Appeals Board l
said in Southern California Edison Capany, AIAB-248, 8 AEC,957, 963 (1974):
It strains credulity to expect that people will drive f closer to a reactor in order to escape fran an emer-gency generated by the reactor. In the veracular, it ,
might appear to the that they were jumping fran the frying pan into the fire.
_g_
Mr. Kantor testified that travelling in the direction of the reactor would not significantly increase an evacuee's radiation dose. (Tr. 559) . The Board found hoever that under certain circumstances travel in the direction of the reactor could increase the dose. Paragraph 54, p. 33. The Board found that risk to be negligible because it found a lw probability for the occurrence, and because the increase in dosage was still within co-called " safe limits".
Paragraphs 55-56, pp. 35-36. Those finding are based on two erroneous assumptions.
First of all, the accidents postulated by the witnesses and the Board were within the range that would ensure that the releases were controlled by the utility.
(TR 450-451) . Secondly, the accident postulated is characterized as " serious."
Paragraph 55, p. 35, but definitely not a worst case scenario.
The Board had great difficulmy accepting the conclusions of the Applicant's witnesses. (TR. 519-520; 524). Given sone of the questions fran the Board and answers given by Mr. Hungerford, this is not very surprising. See, e.g., TR. 492-497. Just what changed the Boar 2's minds about the problen of dose calculations is unclear, for the only witnesses who testified subsequently were those of the Staff, and their prirrary reacsurance on this point was that the Stony Point situation was rat unique. (TR. 548).
The Staff witnesses, Mr. Kantor and Mr. Anthony, relied in their testimony on the adequacy of the draft County plan, according to Staff counsel. (TR. 520).
How the Board can logically accept the conclusions of witnesses who in turn rely on their assessment of the adequacy of the draft CLunty plan which the County does not feel is adequate in many respects is beyoM analysis. The Boani's finding that there is a feasible escape route for Stony Po#nt presupposes an adequate local plan. That plan has not been finalized, and t'w Board's conclusion is therefore prenature. In addition, the Board's acceptance of the optimistic time ;
1 1
1 h
._.m._.. . - . , ,
- . s.
estimates for evacuation of Stony Point was erroneous which in turn costa serious doubt u p the does calculations. The findings of the Licensing Board on CEE Contention #8 are erroneous and s?mld be reversed.
Respectfully subnitted, 1
SH 4 ohn R. Finock Attorney for CEE 1500 Buhl Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 963-1700 Dated: February 9, 1983 l
e mm -
l _ .
. , _ . _ _ . m-
- ; ,o UNITED STATES OF ANERICA NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY CCLMISSION
~, ,; .- - -
A'IQ4IC SAE'IY A'JD LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Adtninist<:ative Judges: '83 FEB 15 A10:11 Stephen F. Eilperin, Chainnan Thcmas S. ? bore d. .. : l . . a . :. r. r .
Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy """ M[E
)
In the Matter of )
)
'IHE DE7I'ROIT EDISON COMPANY ) . Docket No. 50-341 OL
)
(Enrico Fenni Atmoc Power Plant, )
Unit 2) )
)
CERPIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CEE's Brief On Appeal in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 9th day of February, 1983:
Harry H. Voight, Esq. Stephen F. Eilperin, Esq., Chairperson Ie Boeuf, Iamb, Ierby & McRae Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Colleen Woodhead, Esq. Thcznas S. Moore, Esq.
Office of the Executive legal Director Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Paul Braunlich, Esq. Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy _
10 East First Street Atanic Safe'y and Licensing Apperl Board l
1 Monroe, Michgian 48161 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmniss. T l Washington, D.C. 0555 Peter Marglardt, Esq.
Detroit Edison Ccmpany .
/
/
2000 Secord Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 BY: .b !M J R. MINOCK, Ecc, l Dockating and Service Secticn ttorney for CEE
- Office of the Secretary 1500 Buhl Building, Detroit, MI 48226 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission (313) 963-1700 ,
Washington, D.C. 20555
- _ _