|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
I LIC 4/20/81 i
B 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ggggg7so D I usNRC ,
BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICEhSINGBOARD gpR 2 31901P 7- j I
g 4 ca In the Matter of )
! ) :
l METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 i
) (Restart) !
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) e g !
Station, Unit No. 1) ) s
{ l D
s~
LICENSEE'S REPLY TO SHOLLY MOTION 7 AP y g N M_-
u.a, i
TO REJECT THE NRC STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL U ia%Foo 'II l IMPACT APPRAISAL ON TMI-l RESTART ,
b-j p '
N -
On April 9, 1981, Mr. Sholly filed a motion to t -
the NRC Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal by Division of Engineering Evaluating the Proposed Restart of Three Mile Island l
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (EIA), filed by the Staff on March 30, ,
1981. The motion complains that the EIA fails to address (1) l the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents, (2) the l
potential impact of TMI-2 clean-up on TMI-1 operations, an~d (3) 1 '
l socioeconomic impacts arising from the restart of TMI-1. In the alternative Mr. Sholly requests leave to pose new contentions dealing with the same alleged deficiencies in the EIA.
A. Licensea's Procedural Objections In substance, Mr. Sholly seeks to revive NEPA conten-tions which he voluntarily withdrew over nine months ago on June 5, 1980 (Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Reconsideration of Con-tentions). The withdrawn contentions were Sholly Contention 12 k 810430n H 5
and a portion of Sholly Contention 10. Sholly contention 12 und its accompanying Basis asserted the need under NEPA for an environmental impact statement covering, among other impacts, class 9 accidents and psychological distress. The withdrawn portion of Contention 10 included the impact of accidents at TMI-2 on the operation of Unit 1. As explained in Mr. Sholly's June 5, 1980 notice of withdrawal, this portion of Contention 10 " calls for an environmental impact analysis of the cleanup of TMI-2 with regards to the impact on operations of TMI-1. "
Thus the claimed need for environmental impact analysis in all three areas identified in Mr. Sholly's present motion were the subject of contentions initially advanced and subsequently with-drawn by Mr. Sholly.
At best Mr. Sholly's motion should be treated as late-filed contentions and judged by the five factors controlling j
late filings under the Commission's Rules of Practice:b!
- 1. Good cause. There is no excuse for seeking now to resurrect contentions withdrawn by Mr. Sholly over nine months ago. The EIA was not, of course, available at the time of with-drawal. But Mr. Sholly was at that time already on notice of the positica that the Staff would take concerning the need of environmental analysis under NEPA of Class 9 accidents and psy-chological distress. (NRC Staff Position on Need to Consider Class 9 Events, dated January 31, 1980, pp. 3-4; Brief of NRC 1/ Mr. Sholly's failure to address these factors constitutes a further deficiency in his motion. Licensee has elected .
in the interest of time to take the initiative in address-ing the five factors.
Staff on Psychological Distress Issues, dated October 31, 1979.)
Mr. Sholly was also on notice of Licensee's position on the need to address the impacts of TMI-2 cleanup activities on TMI-l in I
an environmental impact statetaent. (Licensee's Responsive Brief on the Issue of Preparing an FES Prior to TM1-l Restart, dated l l j
December 7, 1979,lpp. 2-5.) There were no surprises in the EIA.
l
- 2. Availability of other means to protect Mr. Shelly's interest. As to two of the potential impacts which Mr. Sholly now seeks to resurrect as NEPA issues (Class 9 accidents and the impactofTMI-2cheanuponTMI-1), Mr. Sholly has had ample oppor-i tunity to address the same impacts as safety issues. However, in addition to withdrawing Contentions 12 and 10 on June 5, 1980, 1
Mr. Sholly also withdrew his safety contention on Class 9 acci-dents (Contention: 17) by Memorandum to the Board and parties dated December 23, 1980. Mr. Sholly cannot now be heard to complain of I
a situation of his own making.
- 3. Assistance in developing a sound record. Mr. Sholly has himself already belittled his competence to addres the NEPA legal issues rais d by his Contentions 12 and 10 and now sought to be renewed in his motion. (Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Recon-sideration of Contentions, dated June 5, 1980, pp. 2-3). Licensee does not disparage Mr. Sholly's ability to make substantive con-tributions on technical issues. Mr. Sholly is not, however, by his motion offering to supply technical information for analysis.
He would instead have the NRC Staff produce additional work and studies. Further, Mr. Sholly's sporadic attention to the hearing I
since he joined the UCS Staff on February 1,1981, and the demands
1 of his new position to which he refers in this December 23, 1980 Memorandum,' are not reassuring as to his ability to make useful and timely contributions to matters which he has pre-viously chosen not to pursue.
f
- 4. Representation of Mr. Sholly's interest by other participants. Two other contentions in this proceeding (CEA-1 and TMIA-8), on which the Board deferred ruli,ngs, raise the issue as to whether an impact statement is required to address the issue of psychological stress and related socioeconomic impacts. In Licensee's view the Commission's Memorandum and I order dated December 5, 1980 -(CLI-80-39) has effectively re-moved from this proceeding the consideration of psychological distress issues. In any event, however, whatever is left of Mr. Sholly's interest in this issue is still represented by the CEA and TMIA contentions.
No other intervenor contention addresses Mr. Sho11y's interest in an impact statement covering class 9 accidents or the impact of TMI-2 cleanup on Unit 1.
- 5. Broadening the issues and delay inthe proceeding.
In resurrecting his Contentions 12 and 10 Mr. Sho11y's motion clearly would broaden the issues and delay the proceeding. In Appendix B to his motion Mr. Shelly acknowledges the potential l
for delay but seeks to lay the blame for delay on the NRC Staff for failure "to fulfill its commitment to publish an EIA in the early stages of this proceeding." To begin with, the Staff made no such commitment. Instead, in response to an inquiry by the Chairman of the Board at the November 9,1979 prehearing ccnference, 1
l
! _4
Staff counsel projected the issuance of an EIA in the "same ceneral time frame that we hoped to have completed our safety review," adding that "[ilf I had to pick a date I would pick January." (Tr. 374-5, emphasis added) As the Board and Mr.
Sholly well know, the Staff's safety review is still not com-pleted. Further, Mr. Sholly acknowledges that he was informed by the Staff on February 29, 1980, that there was no schedule set for the filing of the EIA. More importantly, Mr. Sholly cannot complain of Staff delay in the issuance of the EIA when, by virtue of his withdrawal of contentions, the Staff h'ad every reason to believe he had abandoned his interest in the matter.
A balancing of the foregoing five factors clearly mandates the denial of Mr. Sho11y's motion.
B. Licensee's Substantive Objections Licensee also objects on substantive grounds to ex-l panding the EIA to cover the three issues sought to be injected by Mr. Sholly's motion.
- 1. Class 9 Accidents.
At the outset it needs to be emphasized that the purpose of the present hearing is to decide whether to lift a suspension of operating authority for a reactor which prior to the suspension had already been in operation for a number of years. Lifting the suspension will not result in new environ-mental impacts or increase the likelihood or consequences of a Class 9 accident. On the contrary, the restart conditions pro-posed by the Staff and accepted by Licensee are all designed to i
l .
minimize the likelihood and/or consequences of such an accident.
For these reasons Licensee does not consider the lift-ing of suspension of TMI-l's operating authority to constitute a major federal acticn significe.tly affecting the environment.
Moreover, as pointed out by the Staff in the EIA (pp. 12-13),
the matter is settled for this hearing by the Commission's In-terim Statement of Policy (Policy Statement) dated June 13, 1980 and published at 45 Fed. Reg. 40101. While the Policy Statement mandates Class 9 accident reviews for many future impact state-ments, it contains the following direction for ongoing proceed-i
! ings:
2
" Thus, this change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in con-clusions regarding the environmental risks of accidents expressed in any previously issued Statement, nor absent a showing of similar special circumstancas, as a basis for opening, reopening, or expanding any previous or ongoing proceeding."
The TMI-l restart hearing was clearly an ongoing proceeding at the time of issuance of the Policy Statement, and the Commis-sion has directed that the proceeding not be expanded to encom-pass the commission's new approach to the evaluation of Class 9 accidents.
Mr. Sholly first appears to argue that the restart of TMI-1 involves "special circumstances" within the meaning of the above-quoted statement and thus that the statement is inap-plicable to this hearing. In this argument Mr. Sholly is appar-antly the victim of his own misquotation of the statement (appear-ing at page 4 of his motion), which omits the word "similar"
before the words "special circumstances."S/ The word "similar" has clear antecedents in the Policy Statement, namely the type of special circumstances enumerated in earlier portions of the Policy Statement and summarized in footnote 17 at page 12 of the EIA. These have nothing to do with TMI-1.
Mr. Sholly next argues that inclusion of an evaluation of Class 9 accidents in the EIA is compelled by another sentence in the Policy Statement reading as follows:
"It is the intent of the Commission in issu-ing this Statement of Interim Policy that the staff will initiate treatments of accident considerations, in accordance with the fore-going guidance, in its ongoing NEPA reviews, 1.e., for any proceeding at a licensing stage c
where a Final Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been issued."
Mr. Sholly reads this sentence to require a class 9 accident evaluation in the EIA because no FES has been issued for TMI-l l in the restart proceeding. Mr. Sholly's reading is not sup-ported by the wording of the sentence in question.2/ It is also inconsistent with the first-quoted statement above that the Commission's " change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in conclusions regarding the environmental risks of accidents expressed in ang previously issued Statements."
(Emphasis supplied) An FES treating Class 9 accidents in accor-dance with then existing Commission policy (i.e. conforming to the proposed Annex to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50) has pre-viously been issued covering both TMI-l and TMI-2.
2/ In a second misquotation of the same statement Mr. Sholly l
also omits the word "any" before the words "previously issued Statements".
3/ For the third time Mr. Sholly, at page 6 of his motion,
~
has misquoted the Policy Statement by omitting the words "at a licensing stage" after the word " proceeding".
l
J
- 2. Impact of TMI-2 Cleanup.
Mr. Sholly's motion ignores the fact.that the impact of TMI-2 cleanup activities on TMI-l operation is a mandatory topic for consideration by the Board under the Com-mission's August 9, 1979 Order, that both the Staff and Licensee have presented testimony on the matter, and that the subject is covered in the Staff's SER (Section C4) . The Staff concluded ,
' tilat the TMI-2 decontamination and restoration operations will not affect safe operations at TMI-1. (SER, C4-1 and C4-21 In these circumstances Mr. Sholly's complaint as to the failure i
of the EIA to address the same matter exalts form over substance.
Mr. Sholly seeks by his motion to introduce testimony of his observation during a tour of TMI that the atmosphere above the TMI-1 and TMI-2 fuel pools is not separated, leaving the impression that Mr. Sholly alone had discovered this infor-l mation. In fact, this feature of the TMI fuel handling building and the compensating measures taken by Licensee are described in the Staff's SER. (SER, C4-8)
The SER and the testimony of the Staff and Licensee do not address the particular conjectrral scenario postulated by Mr. Sholly, i.e. that an undefined accident might occur in the operation of the Submerged Demineralizer System located in the TMI-2 fuel pool, that the accident might occur coincident ,
with refueling operations at TMI-1, that the accident could somehow (despite the ventilation arrangements described in the SER) result in the need to evacuate the fuel handling building, and that evacuation might in some unspecified way risk an accident
involving TMI-1 fuel. If Mr. Sholly was seriously concerned about this scenario he could have pursued his concern and ob-tained a response in connection with his Contention 10.
- 3. Socioeconomic Impacts.
Mr. Sholly introduces his argument on this sub-ject with the following statement:
"Although the Commission, in CLI-80-39, precluded the discussion of such issues within the context of the litigation of issues in the restart proceeding, the Com-mission took no such position on the con-sideration of such issues in environmental impact analyses performed pursuant to NEPA."
Licensee is simply unable to decipher this statement. Mr.
Sholly appears to be saying that although the Commission de-cided in CLI-80-39 that psychozogical distress and related socioeconomic impacts are not to be considered under NEPA in deciding upon the restart of TMI-i, they are nevertheless to be addressed in NEPA impact statements. If so, the illogic of Mr. Sho11y's statement speaks for itself.
l
- Mr . Sholly next claims to find support for his posi-l tion in the fact that the question of psychological distress has been addressed in the Staff's environmental statement on venting of the TMI-2 containment and in the Staff's Program-matic Environmental Impact Statement or. the cleanup of TMI-2.
He infers from the fact that these documents have been before the Cocnission for review that the Commission intends the Staff to continue to include analyses of psycholgoical stress issues in its NEPA reviews.
The inference is unwarranted. In its decision
e authorizing the venting of TMI-2 containment, the Commission went out of it 4ay to point out that it still had under review in connection with the TMI-1 restart proceeding the cognizability of psychological distress issues and that the psychological distress factor in that case merely reinforced a decision which the Commission was making in the interest of the public health and safety. (Commission Memorand:m and Order dated June 12, 19 80, pp. 9-10 and fn. 9 ) Licensee also submits that no inference can be drawn from the fact that dis-cussions of psychological distress contained in the Draft PEIS (issued prior to the Commission's decision in CLI-80-39) have
{ been carried over to the Final PEIS, particularly where as Mr. Sholly acknowledges the Commission still has the Final PEIS under review.
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Sholly's motion of April 9, 1981, should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, l
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE l
By 1 4 !91 /
/I W *
./
3[ G[orgeF.Trowbridgd Dated: April 20, 1981 l
l l
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY J.ND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of *
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 *
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to Sholly Motion to Reject the NRC Staff Environmental Impact Appraisal on TMI-l Restart," dated April 20, 1981, were served on those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 20th day of April, 1981.
/ 14)u a &
Dated: April 20, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquim John A. Imvin, Esquin Chairman Assistant Counsel Ae nie Safety and 7A~nning Pennsylvania Public CH14ty e-4==icn Board P.O. Scx 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Camissicn W M *hurg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Kar.in W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jcrdan Icbert Adler, Esquim Atanic Safety and TAmnaing Assistant At* g General ,
Beard Panel 505 Executive House 881 West Guter Drive P.O. Box 2357 Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Ma M =hurg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Minnich Arnnic Saf e ty and L4~nning @%, Dauphin c:n:nty scard Boarti Pa .al of 0:2nnissicrers 5000 Semitage Drive Datphin Cbunty Courthouse Raleigh, North c= olina 27612 Fitnt and Marxet Streets N= M =hurg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. Iburtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Imgal Dira Lu. Walter W. Cohen, Esc @
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory r = 4== W. C:msuner A&.ccate Washingtcm, D.C. 20555 Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Str=+=M Square Docketi:xJ and Service Secticm Hardsburg, Pennsylvania 17127 l
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulaterf &4=sien Washington, D.C. 20555 l
l l
l 1
. . . . . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . - - ~ _ _ _. . .
~2-
.!an D. Cunr4Nd==, Esquire Pt2ert Q. Pollard 20 North Second Street 609 Mon +=14=r Street
, arr4 eurg, Pennsylvania 17110 Baltincre, Maryland 21218 Ms. Iouise Bradford , C21auncey Kopford
'DfI ALERP Judith H. Johnsrixi 315 Peffer Street EmrisG-.tal Coalition m Sv-laar Power umvr4 aurg, Pennsylvania 17102 433 orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Barnon & Weiss Marvin I. Iawis 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 6504 Bradford Terrace
! Washington, D.C. 20006 Ph41
- 1 @4=, Pennsylvania 19149 Steven C. Sliolly Marjorie M. Aamodt thicm of Grv'amed Scientists R. D. 5 3
1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 601 (batasville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washington, D.C. 20006
'Dicmas J. Germuse, Esquire Gail Bradford Deputy Atter:ney General ANGiE oivisim of Iaw - Ibcm 316 245 West P!'41=Aal @4= Street 1100 Rayumd Boulevarti York, Permsylvania 17404 Newark, New Jersey 07102 W4114== S. Jordan, III, Esquire
- Haznon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washingtcn, D.C. 20006 l
_ - . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . .._ _ ___ _._ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ - . -