|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20247B3941989-07-13013 July 1989 NRC Staff Response to Rl Anthony Request for Hearing & for Intervention.* Commission Should Deny Anthony Request Due to Anthony Interest Not within Scope of Remand.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246P0581989-07-0707 July 1989 Answer by Philadelphia Electric Co to Request by Rl Anthony for Hearing & Admission as Intervenor.* Anthony Not Entitled to New Hearing on Emergency Plannning or Other Safety Issues & Request Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J3681989-06-23023 June 1989 Request by Intervenor Rl Anthony to Be Continued as Intervenor in Licensing Process for Unit 2 & for Hearing Under 42 ESC Section 2239(a) as Affected Person,Endangered by Philadelphia Electric Failure to Satisfy Plant....* ML20235B4271987-09-16016 September 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Proposed Contentions of Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony.* Board Should Deny Requests That Hearing Be Held in Connection W/Proposed Amend. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20238F1771987-09-11011 September 1987 Licensee Answer to Contentions Proposed by Intervenors Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony.* Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony Failed to Plead Single Admissible Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214N1231987-05-22022 May 1987 Licensee Answer in Opposition to Petition by Rl Anthony for Leave to Intervene and for Hearing.* Petition Deficient Under Rules for Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214N2251987-05-20020 May 1987 Licensee Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing & Leave to Intervene by Air & Water Pollution Patrol.* Supporting Info Encl.Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance Encl ML20214A9301987-05-14014 May 1987 Licensee Opposition to Petition by Graterford Inmates for Review of ALAB-863.* Review Opposed on Grounds That Inmate Petition Failed to Show ALAB-863 Erroneous or Justify Claims of Prejudice.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214M7331986-09-0404 September 1986 Petition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol for Leave to Intervene Opposing Applicant 860819 Application for Amend to License NPF-39.NRC Address List Encl ML20212N2871986-08-25025 August 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20210N4841986-04-29029 April 1986 Petition for Reconsideration of 860227 Petition to Suspend License NPF-39 Due to Faulty Referral to Director of NRR, Inappropriate Response & Restating of Petition Under 10CFR50.100 & 10CFR2.201(c) ML20154R5151986-03-26026 March 1986 Answer Opposing Rl Anthony 860226 Contention Suppls on Amends 1 & 2 to License NPF-39 Due to Failure to Satisfy or Discuss Lateness Criteria & Lack of Standing ML20154R5261986-03-26026 March 1986 Answer Opposing Fr Romano 860319 Late Filed Suppl in Response to Notice of Opportunity to Request Hearing on Proposed Amend 1 to License NPF-39.Romano Failed to Plead Admissible Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210E1911986-03-19019 March 1986 Suppl to 860215 Petition for Leave to Intervene on 860130 & 0205 Requests & Provides List of Contentions Vs Amend to License NPF-39 ML20138A8931986-03-17017 March 1986 Response Opposing Petition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Amend 1 to License NPF-39.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138A9081986-03-17017 March 1986 Response Opposing Rl Anthony 860215 Contentions Re Util Request for Amend 1 to License NPF-39,extending 18-month Surveillance Interval by 14 Wks Beyond Max 25% Extension Allowed by Tech Specs.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138A9511986-03-17017 March 1986 Response Opposing Rl Anthony Contentions Re OL Amend. Contentions Lack Requisite Specificity & Bases Under 10CFR2.714(b).Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8851986-03-13013 March 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20141N1611986-02-26026 February 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Opposition to Util Request to Amend Tech Specs 4.6.1.2.d & 4.6.1.2.g to License NPF-39 ML20205K5471986-02-25025 February 1986 Response Opposing Rl Anthony/Friends of the Earth 860205 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re 851218 Proposed Schedular Amend from Testing Certain Excess Flow Check Valves for 14-wk Period.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N1371986-02-24024 February 1986 Petition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20214C9141986-02-19019 February 1986 Answer Opposing 860130 late-filed Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing by Rl Anthony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154D5771986-02-15015 February 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20141M8271986-02-12012 February 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Hearing & Immediate Stay on Effectiveness & Implementation of Amend 1 to License NPF-39.Util Should Be Required to Suspend Operations on Deadline Until Tests Performed ML20151Y7851986-02-10010 February 1986 Opposition to 860126 Petition by Friends of the Earth for Review of ALAB-828.Intervenor Has Shown No Issue of Fact,Law or Policy Which NRC Should Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T9881986-02-0505 February 1986 Amend to 860130 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Extension of 96 Days for Testing Instrumentation Lines Vital to Safe Operation & Shutdown Requested.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094A2831984-11-0202 November 1984 Answer to Intervenor Del-Aware Unlimited,Inc,Revised Contentions V-14 & V-16.Proposed Contentions Should Be Denied & Del-Aware Dismissed as Party.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094A8691984-10-23023 October 1984 Appeal from Second Partial Initial decision,LPB-84-31 & ASLB 840901 Motion to Set Aside & Reopen Contentions V-3a & 3B & Petition for Stay ML20106C5081984-10-19019 October 1984 Revised Contentions 14 & 16 Re Destruction of Eligible Natl Historic District of Point Pleasant & Adverse Effect on Salinity Levels & Water Quality in Delaware River, Respectively.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093F0851984-10-0909 October 1984 Response to Limerick Ecology Action Refiled Deferred Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093D6331984-10-0909 October 1984 Answer Opposing Limerick Ecology Action (Lea) Deferred Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Lea Respecified Contentions Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093C0991984-10-0101 October 1984 Respec of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097C5551984-09-13013 September 1984 Answer Opposing Limerick Ecology Action (Lea) 840906 Respecification of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions. ASLB Should Dismiss Any Contentions for Which Lea Fails to Proffer Direct Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096A7221984-08-29029 August 1984 Response Opposing Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840814 Pleading on Reopening Contention VI-1 Re Welding & Welding Insp Infractions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20095E4271984-08-21021 August 1984 Answer Opposing late-filed Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840808 New Contention Re Evacuation.Contention Lacks Basis & Specificity & Fails to Show Good Cause for Late Filing. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20095E4401984-08-20020 August 1984 Provides Addendum to Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840816 New Info Contention Re Polyvinyl Chloride.Fifth Criterion Re Breakdown of Polyvinyl Chloride Inadvertantly Omitted.Small Delay in Proceedings Ack for Large Public Good ML20095C0251984-08-16016 August 1984 New Info Contention Re Health Hazard Via Polyvinyl Chloride Fill Used in Reactor Cooling Towers.W/Svc List ML20094K0871984-08-0909 August 1984 Reply to Applicant & Staff Answers to Cepa Safety Contentions.Contentions Should Be Admitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094J7761984-08-0808 August 1984 New Contention That Applicant Must Provide Fully Testable & Capable Emergency Evacuation Plan Prior to Receipt of OL ML20093N2651984-07-27027 July 1984 Answer to Consumer Educ & Protective Assoc 840717 Safety Contentions.Contentions Lack Basis,Concern Ratemaking Matters Outside NRC Jurisdiction & Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093E4241984-07-16016 July 1984 Safety Contentions Re Util Inability to Conduct Full & Safe Test Procedures.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090A6751984-07-10010 July 1984 Answer to New Proposed Contention by Air & Water Pollution Patrol Re Gross Alpha.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092N1501984-06-26026 June 1984 New Contention That EPA Max Containment Levels for Gross alpha,Ra-226 & Ra-228 Inadequately Verified by Applicant & Nrc.W/Svc List ML20092P7701984-06-19019 June 1984 Motion Opposing Util 840509 Motion for Expedited Partial Decision & Low Power License.Util & NRC Should Certify That All Nonconformance Items & Open Insp Items Corrected & Complete Before Nuclear Fuel Moved Onsite ML20092P7721984-06-18018 June 1984 Motion for Admission of Contentions Based on JW Gallagher & Js Kemper Requesting Remaining Portion of License to Move Fuel to Refueling Floor,Insp & Storage of Fuel & Petition for Stay ML20091R4601984-06-13013 June 1984 Answer Opposing Friends of the Earth 840518 Supplemental Motion for Admission of New,Late Contentions Re Applicant Motion for Expedited Partial Initial Decision & Issuance of Low Power License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20091C9221984-05-29029 May 1984 Response Opposing Petition by Citizen Action in the Northeast for Late Intervention & Admission of Financial Qualifications Contention.Contentions Lack Requisite Bases & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M8061984-03-30030 March 1984 New Addition to Contention Re Asbestos Fiber Discharges Into Schuylkill River & Air.Discharge Not Identified Nor Included in Plant Operation Discharge Descriptions.W/Svc List ML20087M6381984-03-28028 March 1984 Response Opposing M Lewis 840314 Motion for New Contention Based on IE Info Notice 84-17 Cooling of Vital Components by Liquid Nitrogen.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087K8651984-03-23023 March 1984 Motion to Dismiss Particular Onsite Emergency Planning Contentions for Which Discovery Not Provided or No Litigable Basis Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl 1989-07-07
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20247B3941989-07-13013 July 1989 NRC Staff Response to Rl Anthony Request for Hearing & for Intervention.* Commission Should Deny Anthony Request Due to Anthony Interest Not within Scope of Remand.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246P0581989-07-0707 July 1989 Answer by Philadelphia Electric Co to Request by Rl Anthony for Hearing & Admission as Intervenor.* Anthony Not Entitled to New Hearing on Emergency Plannning or Other Safety Issues & Request Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J3681989-06-23023 June 1989 Request by Intervenor Rl Anthony to Be Continued as Intervenor in Licensing Process for Unit 2 & for Hearing Under 42 ESC Section 2239(a) as Affected Person,Endangered by Philadelphia Electric Failure to Satisfy Plant....* ML20235B4271987-09-16016 September 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Proposed Contentions of Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony.* Board Should Deny Requests That Hearing Be Held in Connection W/Proposed Amend. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20238F1771987-09-11011 September 1987 Licensee Answer to Contentions Proposed by Intervenors Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony.* Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony Failed to Plead Single Admissible Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214N1231987-05-22022 May 1987 Licensee Answer in Opposition to Petition by Rl Anthony for Leave to Intervene and for Hearing.* Petition Deficient Under Rules for Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214N2251987-05-20020 May 1987 Licensee Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing & Leave to Intervene by Air & Water Pollution Patrol.* Supporting Info Encl.Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance Encl ML20214A9301987-05-14014 May 1987 Licensee Opposition to Petition by Graterford Inmates for Review of ALAB-863.* Review Opposed on Grounds That Inmate Petition Failed to Show ALAB-863 Erroneous or Justify Claims of Prejudice.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214M7331986-09-0404 September 1986 Petition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol for Leave to Intervene Opposing Applicant 860819 Application for Amend to License NPF-39.NRC Address List Encl ML20212N2871986-08-25025 August 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20210N4841986-04-29029 April 1986 Petition for Reconsideration of 860227 Petition to Suspend License NPF-39 Due to Faulty Referral to Director of NRR, Inappropriate Response & Restating of Petition Under 10CFR50.100 & 10CFR2.201(c) ML20154R5151986-03-26026 March 1986 Answer Opposing Rl Anthony 860226 Contention Suppls on Amends 1 & 2 to License NPF-39 Due to Failure to Satisfy or Discuss Lateness Criteria & Lack of Standing ML20154R5261986-03-26026 March 1986 Answer Opposing Fr Romano 860319 Late Filed Suppl in Response to Notice of Opportunity to Request Hearing on Proposed Amend 1 to License NPF-39.Romano Failed to Plead Admissible Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210E1911986-03-19019 March 1986 Suppl to 860215 Petition for Leave to Intervene on 860130 & 0205 Requests & Provides List of Contentions Vs Amend to License NPF-39 ML20138A8931986-03-17017 March 1986 Response Opposing Petition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Amend 1 to License NPF-39.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138A9081986-03-17017 March 1986 Response Opposing Rl Anthony 860215 Contentions Re Util Request for Amend 1 to License NPF-39,extending 18-month Surveillance Interval by 14 Wks Beyond Max 25% Extension Allowed by Tech Specs.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138A9511986-03-17017 March 1986 Response Opposing Rl Anthony Contentions Re OL Amend. Contentions Lack Requisite Specificity & Bases Under 10CFR2.714(b).Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8851986-03-13013 March 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20141N1611986-02-26026 February 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Opposition to Util Request to Amend Tech Specs 4.6.1.2.d & 4.6.1.2.g to License NPF-39 ML20205K5471986-02-25025 February 1986 Response Opposing Rl Anthony/Friends of the Earth 860205 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re 851218 Proposed Schedular Amend from Testing Certain Excess Flow Check Valves for 14-wk Period.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N1371986-02-24024 February 1986 Petition of Air & Water Pollution Patrol for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20214C9141986-02-19019 February 1986 Answer Opposing 860130 late-filed Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing by Rl Anthony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154D5771986-02-15015 February 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20141M8271986-02-12012 February 1986 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Hearing & Immediate Stay on Effectiveness & Implementation of Amend 1 to License NPF-39.Util Should Be Required to Suspend Operations on Deadline Until Tests Performed ML20151Y7851986-02-10010 February 1986 Opposition to 860126 Petition by Friends of the Earth for Review of ALAB-828.Intervenor Has Shown No Issue of Fact,Law or Policy Which NRC Should Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T9881986-02-0505 February 1986 Amend to 860130 Petition of Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Extension of 96 Days for Testing Instrumentation Lines Vital to Safe Operation & Shutdown Requested.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094A2831984-11-0202 November 1984 Answer to Intervenor Del-Aware Unlimited,Inc,Revised Contentions V-14 & V-16.Proposed Contentions Should Be Denied & Del-Aware Dismissed as Party.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094A8691984-10-23023 October 1984 Appeal from Second Partial Initial decision,LPB-84-31 & ASLB 840901 Motion to Set Aside & Reopen Contentions V-3a & 3B & Petition for Stay ML20106C5081984-10-19019 October 1984 Revised Contentions 14 & 16 Re Destruction of Eligible Natl Historic District of Point Pleasant & Adverse Effect on Salinity Levels & Water Quality in Delaware River, Respectively.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093F0851984-10-0909 October 1984 Response to Limerick Ecology Action Refiled Deferred Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093D6331984-10-0909 October 1984 Answer Opposing Limerick Ecology Action (Lea) Deferred Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Lea Respecified Contentions Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093C0991984-10-0101 October 1984 Respec of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097C5551984-09-13013 September 1984 Answer Opposing Limerick Ecology Action (Lea) 840906 Respecification of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions. ASLB Should Dismiss Any Contentions for Which Lea Fails to Proffer Direct Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096A7221984-08-29029 August 1984 Response Opposing Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840814 Pleading on Reopening Contention VI-1 Re Welding & Welding Insp Infractions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20095E4271984-08-21021 August 1984 Answer Opposing late-filed Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840808 New Contention Re Evacuation.Contention Lacks Basis & Specificity & Fails to Show Good Cause for Late Filing. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20095E4401984-08-20020 August 1984 Provides Addendum to Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840816 New Info Contention Re Polyvinyl Chloride.Fifth Criterion Re Breakdown of Polyvinyl Chloride Inadvertantly Omitted.Small Delay in Proceedings Ack for Large Public Good ML20095C0251984-08-16016 August 1984 New Info Contention Re Health Hazard Via Polyvinyl Chloride Fill Used in Reactor Cooling Towers.W/Svc List ML20094K0871984-08-0909 August 1984 Reply to Applicant & Staff Answers to Cepa Safety Contentions.Contentions Should Be Admitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094J7761984-08-0808 August 1984 New Contention That Applicant Must Provide Fully Testable & Capable Emergency Evacuation Plan Prior to Receipt of OL ML20093N2651984-07-27027 July 1984 Answer to Consumer Educ & Protective Assoc 840717 Safety Contentions.Contentions Lack Basis,Concern Ratemaking Matters Outside NRC Jurisdiction & Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093E4241984-07-16016 July 1984 Safety Contentions Re Util Inability to Conduct Full & Safe Test Procedures.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090A6751984-07-10010 July 1984 Answer to New Proposed Contention by Air & Water Pollution Patrol Re Gross Alpha.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092N1501984-06-26026 June 1984 New Contention That EPA Max Containment Levels for Gross alpha,Ra-226 & Ra-228 Inadequately Verified by Applicant & Nrc.W/Svc List ML20092P7701984-06-19019 June 1984 Motion Opposing Util 840509 Motion for Expedited Partial Decision & Low Power License.Util & NRC Should Certify That All Nonconformance Items & Open Insp Items Corrected & Complete Before Nuclear Fuel Moved Onsite ML20092P7721984-06-18018 June 1984 Motion for Admission of Contentions Based on JW Gallagher & Js Kemper Requesting Remaining Portion of License to Move Fuel to Refueling Floor,Insp & Storage of Fuel & Petition for Stay ML20091R4601984-06-13013 June 1984 Answer Opposing Friends of the Earth 840518 Supplemental Motion for Admission of New,Late Contentions Re Applicant Motion for Expedited Partial Initial Decision & Issuance of Low Power License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20091C9221984-05-29029 May 1984 Response Opposing Petition by Citizen Action in the Northeast for Late Intervention & Admission of Financial Qualifications Contention.Contentions Lack Requisite Bases & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M8061984-03-30030 March 1984 New Addition to Contention Re Asbestos Fiber Discharges Into Schuylkill River & Air.Discharge Not Identified Nor Included in Plant Operation Discharge Descriptions.W/Svc List ML20087M6381984-03-28028 March 1984 Response Opposing M Lewis 840314 Motion for New Contention Based on IE Info Notice 84-17 Cooling of Vital Components by Liquid Nitrogen.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087K8651984-03-23023 March 1984 Motion to Dismiss Particular Onsite Emergency Planning Contentions for Which Discovery Not Provided or No Litigable Basis Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl 1989-07-07
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20151L3671997-08-0505 August 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately).Orders That SA Blacklock Prohibited from Engaging in Activities Licensed by NRC for 5 Yrs from Date of Order ML20151L5181997-08-0505 August 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) Re SL Nevin Deliberately Falsifying Records of RECW Sample Documentation on 960207 ML20203H6891997-06-0202 June 1997 Transcript of 970602 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa ML20083N3971995-04-26026 April 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves ML20081B3811995-03-0101 March 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Suppl 5 to GL 88-20, IPEEE for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20045D8121993-06-14014 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54 Re FSAR Update Submittals. ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20062C6561990-10-22022 October 1990 Affidavit Requesting Withholding of Summary Rept on Evaluation of Recirculation Nozzle to Safe End Weld Indication & Proposed Disposition to Permit Unit 1 Cycle 4 Operation, from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790 ML20246J4521989-08-30030 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Terminating Proceeding).* Terminates Proceeding Per Settlement Agreement Between Limerick Ecology Action,Inc & Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890831 ML20246F1471989-08-25025 August 1989 Settlement Agreement.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246F1011989-08-25025 August 1989 Joint Motion for Termination of Proceedings.* Board Moved to Accept Encl Settlement Agreement,Dismiss Limerick Ecology Action,Inc (Lea) Contention W/Prejudice,Dismiss Lea as Party to Proceeding & Terminate Proceeding ML20246F0121989-08-25025 August 1989 Memorandum & Order CLI-89-17.* Staff Authorizes Issuance of Full Power License to Licensee to Operate Unit 2 After Requisite Safety Findings Under 10CFR50.57 Completed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20246E3431989-08-22022 August 1989 Opposition of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Motion by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Set Schedule for Discovery & Hearing.* Requests That Schedule Be Replaced W/More Reasonable Schedule,As Proposed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246C0271989-08-18018 August 1989 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Informs That D Nash Appointed as Commission Adjudicatory Employee to Advise Commission on Issues in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890818 ML20246B7721989-08-17017 August 1989 Correction of Memorandum & Order of 890815.* Advises That Refs to 49CFR2.730(c) on Page 1 & 49CFR2.710 & 49CFR2.711 on Page 2 Should Be Corrected to Read as 10CFR2.730(c),2.710 & 2.711,respectively.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890818 ML20246D7411989-08-17017 August 1989 Transcript of 890817 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion of Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-58.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20246B7571989-08-16016 August 1989 Order Responding to Limerick Ecology Action Motion for Reconsideration.* Denies Motion to Reconsider,Stay,Suspend or Revoke 890707 Order on Basis That Order Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc.Served on 890816.Re-served on 890818 ML20246B7751989-08-16016 August 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Rl Anthony 890623 Request for Hearing for Intervention in Remand Proceeding & for Stay of Low Power Authorization.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890816 ML20246B7931989-08-15015 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Request for Expedited Answer).* Denies Licensee 890811 Request for Expedited Answer from NRC & Limerick Ecology Action on Basis That Request Lacks Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890816 ML20245H8061989-08-14014 August 1989 Supplemental Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission & to Memorandum & Order of 890807.* Requests Further Extension of Time in Which to Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20245H8491989-08-14014 August 1989 Notice of Change of Address.* Advises of Council Change of Address for Svc of Documents ML20245H5991989-08-11011 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Terminating Proceeding).* Dismisses Graterford Inmates Contention Re Adequacy of Training for Drivers Responsible for Evacuating Graterford & Terminates Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890814 ML20245H7341989-08-10010 August 1989 Motion by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Set Schedule for Discovery & Hearing & Request for Expedited Answer to This Motion.* Divergence in Positions of Respective Parties Emphasizes Need to Conclude Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7511989-08-0909 August 1989 Reply by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Commission Should Rely on Licensee Cost Analysis in Response to Question 5 & Rc Williams Affidavit.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7341989-08-0909 August 1989 NRC Staff Response to Commission Memorandum & Order of 890807.* Advises That NRC Will Provide Comments on Limerick Ecology Action 890814 Filing Prior to Commission Meeting Scheduled for 890817.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245F7161989-08-0909 August 1989 Reply by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission Dtd 890726.* Environ Benefits for Operating Unit 2 Outweigh Small Risk of Severe Accident ML20245F7291989-08-0808 August 1989 Affidavit.* Discusses Costs Incurred While Plant Inoperable. Allowance for Funds Used During Const,Security,Maint & Operational Costs Considered Proper for Calculating Costs for Delay ML20248D9241989-08-0707 August 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Extends Limerick Ecology Action Response Deadline to 890814 to Respond to Five Questions Re Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890807 ML20248D7871989-08-0303 August 1989 Correction for NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Forwards Corrected Page 5 to NRC Response to Questions Filed on 890802,deleting Phrase by Nearly Factor 2.5 in Next to Last Line.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D5391989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit of MT Masnik.* Advises That Author Prepared Response to Question 3 ML20248D7111989-08-0202 August 1989 Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,Inc to Memorandum & Order of Commission Dtd 890726.* Commission Order Fails to Provide Intervenor Adequate Time for Response & Should Therefore Be Revoked.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D5671989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit of SE Feld.* Advises That Author Prepared Response to Question 5.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D4971989-08-0202 August 1989 Joint Affidavit of Gy Suh & CS Hinson.* Advises That Authors Prepared Responses to Questions 1 & 4 ML20248D6451989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit.* Advises That Author Read Responses to Request for Comments by NRC & Knows Contents.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D4721989-08-0202 August 1989 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions.* Provides Info for Use in Commission Effectiveness Review of Plant Full Power Operation,Per Commission 890726 Memorandum & Order. Supporting Affidavits Encl ML20248D5981989-08-0202 August 1989 Response by Licensee Philadelphia Electric Co to Commission Request for Comments by Memorandum & Order Dtd 890726.* Licensee Requests Commission Issue Full Power OL for Unit 2 Conditioned Upon Outcome of Pending Litigation ML20248D5311989-08-0202 August 1989 Affidavit of Rj Barrett.* Advises That Author Prepared Response to Question 2 ML20245J1321989-07-27027 July 1989 Transcript of 890727 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Facility Severe Accident Mitigation Issues.Pp 1-130.Supporting Info Encl ML20247N3261989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of 890726 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Rockville,Md on SECY-89-220 Re Order Requesting Info from Parties for Immediate Effectiveness Review of Full Power Authorization for Limerick Unit 2.Pp 1-4 ML20248D7331989-07-24024 July 1989 Second Rept of Parties & Request for Dismissal of Graterford Inmates Contention & Termination of Proceeding.* Requests Board to Enter Order to Terminate Proceeding Based on Parties Agreeing to Dismissal of Remaining Contention ML20247Q4621989-07-23023 July 1989 Response of Intervenor Rl Anthony to Answer of Philadelphia Electric Co (PECO) to Request for Hearing on PECO Application for Low Power Operation of Unit 2 & Stay of Any Operation in Keeping W/Us Circuit Court Remand Of....* ML20247B7261989-07-20020 July 1989 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Advises That H Vandermole Appointed to Advise Commission on Issues in Proceeding Re Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890720 ML20247B3821989-07-18018 July 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Orders That Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives,Per Nepa,To Be Considered Include Containment Heat Removal,Core Residue Capture & Venting.Certificate of Encl.Served on 890719 ML20247B7641989-07-13013 July 1989 Motion of Intervenor,Limerick Ecology Action Inc,To Reconsider/Stay/Suspend/Revoke Order Authorizing Issuance of Low Power OL for Limerick 2.* Consideration of Accident Mitigation Alternatives Imperative.Certificate of Svc Encl 1997-08-05
[Table view] |
Text
_ - _ - ____ _ _ __________ _ _ _ .
'O g 1llC ) b <
DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '81 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEC 22 N1:38 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD- - - - - . , ,
In the Matter of : -
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : Docket Nos. 50-352
' Limerick Generating Station, : 50-353 Units 1 and 2 : , ss y s 0
ytgCYmo 199F ,
LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION'S REPLY TO NRC (ITAFO g
AND APPLICANT ANSWERS TO SUPPLEMENTAL Q c f$ q"r y
~ PETITION OF COORDINATED INTERVENORS 9 A ,d M',~QL N~ pq ),1 ;
I. PREMATURITY A major objection by the Applicant to many of I,imerick Ecology Action's (LEA's) proposed contentionsiis that unde-veloped portions of the operating-license application cannpt be the subject of contentions. -(NRC staff, on the other hand, have taken the position that it M appropriate at this stage.in the proceedinos for petitioners to plead the ab-sence or inadequacy of portions of the application.) As an example, the Applicant argues that LEA emergency planning contentions numbered VIII-1,-2,-5,-6,-7,-12,-13,-14,-17,
-18,-19,-20,-21,-23,-24,-25,-26,-27,-28,-29,-30, and -31 are
" premature" because the present deficiencies in the Emergency Plans set forth in those contentions will be cured by in-formation to be submitted "during the course of the operating license review." D S
~
g2gO O /[
G
2.
Such objections to the " prematurity" of contentions, premised upon a promise to cure a present deficiency at a later time, have no basis in the regulations.
The Applicant has submitted the Plans as part of its application for an operating license for the Limerick facility, as required by 10 CFR 550.33(g). While it is common practice for incomp.lete applications to be accepted for docketing by the Commission, LEA is required to file its contentions now, and therefore must take the application and suoporting documentation as filed.
When faced with similar objections to the prematurity of emergency planning contentions, the ASLB for the Perry ,
Nuclear Power Plants recently rejected the applicant's arguments. In Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.,
(Perry Muclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-81-24,.14 NRC 175 (1981), the applicant urged the Board to reject the emergency planning contention as premature, arguing that it
- "is confident that agreements will be reached with localities concerning emergency planning and that' the incompleteness of current plans will be remedied," and contending that "it was inappropriate to admit contentions about deficiencies which are likely to be cured." Id. at 188.
The Board admitted the contention over the applicant's objections, and concluded:
3.
9 We ... reject Applicant's plea to delay ruling on this contention.... Intervenors have given reasons for concern about the adequacy of the Furthermore, local plan which will be fi}ed.
they are required to file contentions now. If they find a current deficiency, it seems approp-riate to admit the contention subject if thetodeficiency dis- is missal through summary judgement .
cured. Id. at 190.
Applicant offers no reason why its incomplete plans should be specially treated.
Applicant makes the same " prematurity" argument with respect to many of LEA's technical safety contentions.
It is Applicant's position that "a petitioner must make a showing, with specificity, that there is some inherent problem with the design, construction or implementation of procedures for the Limerick Station that would prevent it from meeting NRC requirements." (Emphasi's added. )
It is LEA's position that a proper area of inquiry is whether or not the Commission's rules and regulations will be met, and not only whether they can be met.
By submitting its technical safety and emergency LEA has put the Board, NRC staff-planning contentions now, and the Applicant on notice as to which areas of the appli-cation (for which substantial additional information will-later be filed by Applicant) LEA is most interested in pursuing. Given the large number of " holes" in the Limerick application, LEA's failure to make known its major interests would have put the Board and parties at a distinct dis-advantage for planning purposes.
4.
Furthermore, it is likely that LEA, upon challenging the sufficiency of, for example, new emergency planning in-formation _that will be forthcoming, would have been accused of a failure to raise issues in a timely fashion.
Applicant's position that "these matters (undeveloped portions of the application) cannot constitute the basis for an admissible contention, nor can petitioners assert an absolute right to raise these matters at some later. time,"
is an untenable one ---undeveloped portions of the application are subject to scrutiny by intervenors at such time as new information is available. ,
In addition to the emergency planning contentions listed previously, Applicant's objections to contentions I-1,-19,
~30,-33 to 39,-41 to 46,-55, and -61 are based on its
" prematurity" argument and should be disregarded by the-Board.
i i
I
! II. OBJECTIONS Or THE MERITS 1 .
To the extent that numerous Aoplicant objections-to LEA's contentions raise questions of fact concerning the merits of the contentions, such objections are inproper.
A purpose of the basis-for-contention requirement in Section 2.714'is to help assure at the plead-ing stage that the hearing process is not im-properly invoked....Another purpose is to help assure that othe parties are sufficiently put on notice so that-they.will know at least l
generally what they_will have to defend against l
or oppose. Still another purpose is to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudi-cation in the particular proceedin7 Philadelphia
5.
Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Station, Units 2 and 3) , ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21-(1974).
It is clear that a contention need not plead evidence to prove the basis for an allegation, and that the merits of an issue are not to be considered at the pleading stage. Commonwealth Edison Company, (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683 (1980). (Enphasis added.) See Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973).
Applicant objections to LEA contentions I-7 to 10, -23 to 26, and -30, and VIII-6 are attacks on the merits of those contentions and should be disregarded by the Board at this stage of the proceedings.
III. STATUS OF THE PRA The Applicant asserts that the probabilistic risk asse.ssment (PRA) is not part of the operating license appli-cation, goes beyond the requirements of the regulations, and
! cannot be the sub' ject of litigation in this proceeding.
It must be stated at the outset that Applicant's de-tailed argument concerning the NRC's discretionary hearing-l on the Indian Point risk assessment,. granted pursuant to a l petition filed after the Indian Point licenses were granted and the. plants had begun operating, is irrelevant in the setting of this licensing proceeding.
-In light of the accident at TMI, the Applicant was directed to conduct and submit a PRA for Limerick. The purpose was to determine whether Limerick risk represented a disproportion-ately high segment of the to.tal societal risk from. postulated
~ . 4 6.
nuclear reactor accidents, based on the high population density.
area in which it is located and'its Proposed power level.
Given Harold Denton's statement in Congressional hearings in-May of 1980 that were PECO to apply for a construction permit for Limerick today, it would be denied, andLthe'NRC's direction to PECO to conduct a PRA, one must assume that the NRC intends to rely on the PRA to some degree in asserting-its ultimate position _on the: licensing of Limerick. No doubt the Applicant intends to.do the same.
Furthermore, as the Applicant states in its. Response to Question 100.2 of the NRC Acceptance Review, the PRA "contai,ns information' required by the NRC's Interim Position on Accident Considerations Under NEPA (4 5 FR 4 0101) , " and therefore'was incorporated in its entirety into the EROL by the Applicant.
Its present assertion that the PRA is not part of the application is a semantic argument without substance.
- Whether'or not the PRA is #part" of the application in fact matters little -- if it is going to be relied upon in the licensing _ process, then it must be the subject of scrutiny by parties to that process. PECO has the option of asserting its apparent position that it prepared the PRA voluntarily and not because it was required to, by withdr' awing the document from the application.
m
~
7.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS .
I-3. '3RC)
In response to.NRC staff's objection to this contention, LEA asks how the staff will be able to determine whether Limerick' represents a disproportionate portion of the risk from nuclear reactors, if it does not know what the actual total' risk is?
I-15. (NRC , PECO)
While LEA recognizes that it has " grasped a slender reed" in asserting this contention, as the.NRC staff states, it is LEA's experience after spending substantial time and effort reviewing the application that nuances in wording have often been used by theLApplicant in order to hedge without misrepresenting facts. In the case of the word " identify,"
one will not find what one does not look for. LEA may well ce in error in questioning the wording of the PRA in this particular instance -- a simple discovery question as to the extent and methodology of the search would quickly resolve the matter.
I-18. (NRC, PECO)
In response to the recuest for clarification of this.
contention, LEA refers the NRC and Applicant'to those variabilities at'page 1-24 of the PRA which are not in-
~
corporated into the component level failure probability quantification. It is-LEA's position that failure to include
. 8.
qualification requirement variability, particularly for environmental qualification, improperly decreases calcu-lated' risk.
Environmental qualification of equipment and systems has been the subject of considerable research and dis-cussion within the NRC, particularly recently. Disagreement persists as to what equipment should be classified as safety-related and therefore required to qualify as such under the regulations. LEA contends that variability in components due to differences in qualification requirements contributes significantly to accident risk, and should be factored into the risk analysis. .
I-21. (PECO)
While LEA would be most pleased if 10 CFR 550.34 (b) (5) (vii) required an absolute showing that interaction between an .
operating reactor and one under construction will not occur, as alleged by the Applicant, LEA does not interpret the regu-lation cited to contain such a requirement. Rather, it requires an analysis to estimate the potential hazards from such construction. (In light of 'the Browns Ferry fire, one may conclude either that no such absolute requirement exists, or that the Browns Ferry operating license.was imoroperly issued.)-
I-38. (NRC)
NRC staff object to this contention on the ground that it represents a challenge in GDC 64, which requires sampling capability for radioactivity released during normal operations and postulated accidents. Staff interpret " postulated
9.
accidents" to be limited to DBA LOCA's, even though GDC 50, to which staff refers, requires containment accommodation to any LOCA. The LOCA at Three Mile Island was designated a
" class 9" accident, and was therefore clearly not a DBA -
LOCA.
Given the Commission's position on consideration of beyond-design-basis accidents since TMI (related to NEPA-analyis and emergency planning, for instance), it makes little sense to LEA for the staff to interpret " postulated accidents" as DBA LOCA's only, and not beyond-design-basis LOCA's.
It should also be pointed out that Regulatory Guide 1.3, to which staff refers, states in the introduction that the DBA-LOCA is one of the postulated accidents used to evaluate the adequacy of nuclear reactor structures, systems and components.
It then goes on to spell out the assumptions to be used in evaluating the consequences of this accident. LEA sees no reason to infer from the Reg. Guide 1.3 a sampling capability limitation based on DBA-LOCA.
I-59. (NRC , PECO)
In response to NRC staff's objection to this contenticn, as phrased, LEA contends that the design of Limerick does not provide protection against many so-called " class 9" accidents which have been designated as incredible without adequate justification. The NRC's method for determining what accidents fall within the " credible" category and which do not, for Limerick as well a's'for other reactors, is faulty, as evidenced by NRC Staff Testimony of Jack Rosenthal and Paul S. Check Relative to UCS
9 *
- 10. de y
- 4 %
. r, N Contention 13, Docket No. 50-289 (Restart) . The accident =
at TMI, which has been classified as a " class 9" event, must-N now'be considered ~a credible accident scenario, in-spite of its not.havingf een b designated as such by'the NRC in its setting of the. design basis.
! Because of L the lack of justification forxDBA at Limerick,-
there is no reasonable assurance that Limerick as presently
~
u
, ' designed can be oeprated without undue risk to the health p m
and safety of the public.
! -Applicant alleges that this contention was admitted and litigated'at the CP stage. It is LEA's cosition that the-contention 16 as set forth.in Applicant's answer is-not'the
~
The CP. contention 16 did not.
~
contention-now proposed by LEA.
address the methodology 1for setting the'DBA,:but~rather: simply asserted that'the DBA's'in the.FSAR were not the " wor s t "'~
accidents (credible or otherwise), andquestion$dassumptions '
, regarding consequences of and protection against DBA'_s. , t
- - ~
! I-60. (PECO) ,
LEA is concerned 'about the health effects 'of radioactive
^
l releases as a result of'both " normal reactor operationk in-i 2
clucing anticipated operational occurrences," as~well as -
accidents, given the unicue characteristic of_'the huge popu- . .
! lation situated directly downwind of Limerick. Additional ,
compensating engineering safeguards against air.-and water.
. releases will protect the population under both normal'and accident conditions, and their requirement is authorized by 1
,--.,4 y - - . , , , , ,,n, .-e-, -,-m-.. - .,n, . , . - , .', ,
q g y y
?
. g- w
+ '
,'+
.w' b .,. ~
'i,,
[ s 11.
g s4 C - those regulaticins cited in LEA's contention.
~ , a
,;,.I-63. (PECO] .
s a #"a _. ,
t b7- The fact =that the source of cooling water for Limerick
,t fisnot yet' established is common knowledge. LEA points to
-y
.s -.. .,,s.
P '
Del-AWARE's contentions and the information contained therein.
i' '
3yss on the Poi t Pldasant Diversion controversy, ongoing litigation F . Y regarding the v diversion, and the recent denial of construction 3, , ,
kd 3 ,
spermits by7Plumstead Township for-the Delaware River pumping
~*
Ni station.. .
- tl s
- g. s 4 , VIII-1. (NRC)
- { It,is clear froh.sthe NRC staff objection to this contention 3
, 7 \' w <that it has been misread -- or the Applicant's Emergency Plan
,a A
'has-besn;m(sread.' LEpisnotchallengingtheCommission's X.:.
regulatiions ,- but rael- is seeking compliance with them. '
, s'
- A A(ppplicant; hasps ..ed out, the Emergency Plan was prepared
< orior~t'o prc4mlyation of now-applicable regulations, and section m gg (, s4 4- 4.2 of'$he b an clearly states that it is designed to respond 4 e
~~%
u, ,
to % . ,gn bases accidents only. NRC staff are correct that the N.esi t s s ,,e i-a Commizq1on's emergency planning regulations'give consideration
~ ~
.', to core melt accidents. Applicant's emergency Plan does not.
!- s' g s l
L OIfI .3. '(hRC) 'e.
v4
[
c: %
l While conceding fhat this contention is admissible to
(: -
the' extent th 'i "rhises issues with respect to the ,
s l-3 selection or the ekact size ofithe plume exposure EPZ," the l
f 3
7 staff nevertheless argues that it is inadmissible to the-extent
<,.- that iti seeks to expand the EPZ "significantly" beyond 10 i
i -
miles. ' The applicable regulation, 10 : CFR S50. 4 7 (c) (2) ,
i^ ),s v
} \
e
-k
-t s,
a' .) (
..3 _ - ,
7 ,
e' t
' 12.
s provides that:
Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles ... in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles ... in radius. The exact size and con-figuration of the EPZs surrounding a particular
. nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation g
to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as
! demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes and jurisdictional boundaries. (Emphasis added.)
i Four points are of note:
(lP Insofar as the rule proposes general guidelines for defining EPZ,.the rule specifically requires a site-a '
specific examination of local conditions in determining its .
size and configuration;
~
(2) the statement that local factors are significant to an assessment of emergency response needs is a recognition that si e-specific factors may influence accident consequences, and therefore emergency response needs; (3) the conditions ta be considered are exemplified by, but not limited to, those conditions itemized in the rule;
- 'l 4 (4) the contention specifically limits-itself to a
! - site-specific examination of the kinds of local conditions required to be considered in determining the EPZ.
'As the Board in Cincinnati Gas and Electric Comoany (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station) , LBP 80-14, 11 NRC 570, T
574..(1980), stated, and repeated in a later opinion, LBP 80-19,
,u .
12 NRC 67, 73 (1980), he 10-mile EPZ is a prima facie
[. 3
) -
b I ;*1 '
s ,
13.
starting point. "An applicant [is] free to seek smaller zones, and any party (can) seek to justify larger zones, in appropriate circumstances." Id.
One cannot conclude that the expansion of the plume exposure EPZ to include Philadelphia is impermissible until one has adequately examined the demographic factors, the topographic factors (including prevailing winds and atmos-pheric dispersion factgrs), and other relevant factors, and then, (and only then) based upon this site-specific review, concluding that such expansion is not necessary for local emergency response needs and capabilities.
In effect, the NRC staff are prejudging the outcome of such a review.
Both the rule itself, and the guidance of NUREG-0396, Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Govern-ment. Radiological Emergency Response. Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants _, preclude any interpretation that the regulations contemplate an inflexible precision to-the generic 10-mile EPZ. NUREG-0396 itself cautions on the size of the 10-mile EPZ. " Judgment should be use in adjusting this distance based upon considerations of local conditions such as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries." NUREG-0396, p. 17, Table 1.
No such site-soecific examination of these factors has yet been done. No local emergency plans have yet been filed.
Therefore, any objection to the extent of expansion of the EPZ beyond a 10-mile circular radius-at this point is premature, and would frustrate the nurpose of the emergency planning regulation.
- I
. 14.
VIII-6. (PECO)
The Applicant argues that the time study as submitted is " responsive to the format requested by the NFC." The contention does not take issue with the format - it takes issue only with specific substantive aspects of the time estimates. While Applicant vaguely argues.that "[t]he purpose of such a study is to assist planners in their decision l making under a number of circumstances," LEA contends that the purpose of the evacuation time estimate study is exactly what the title implies, an that the study purports itself l to be: an " estimate of the time required to evacuate a Iv-mile radius from the Limerick plant." Study, p. 1-1.
NUREG-0654 recites that "... the evacuation time 4
estimates will be used by these emergency response personnel charged with recommending and deciding on protective actions !
during an emergency..." NUREG-0654, p. 4-1. The discussion l of the requirements for the evacuation time estimates demon-strates clearly that the estimates are expected to be accurate, and the assumptions and methodology sufficiently explicit to permit verification. See NUREG-0654, Appendix 4.
The remainder of the Applicant's objections to this i
)
contention go to the merits of the contention. See section II.
VIII-19. (PECO)
The Applicant's objection is that no requirement exists for transmission of meteorological information to the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania for independent. analysis. Applicant's statement is incorrect. NUREG-0654, incorporated by reference l l
i
15.
~into'10 CFR Part-50, and acknowledged by the Applicant as "describ[ing] the require [ sic) planning basis for radiologi-cal emergencies" (Answer, p. 101) , specifically states at
- p. 57: .
The licensee shall make available to the State suitable meteorological data processing inter-connections which will permit independent analysis by the State, of f acility generated data in those States with the resources to effectively.use.this information.
~ Inasmuch as this portion of the contention specifically identifies the Applicant's failure to comply with this requirement, it should be admitted. ,
VIII-22. (PECO)
This contention is not intended by LEA to be an attack on the regulations, as alleged by the Applicant. LEA fails to see why an allegation.that a regulation cannot be met in a particular instance should be interpreted as an attack' on that regulation.
VIII-26 (d) . (NRC)
Implementing procedures for the Emergency Plan are required by emergency planning regulations. LEA has alleged a lac'k of such procedures elsewhere in its emergency planning contenti ons (see VIII-29 (e) , (f) ] , and has reserved the right to review procedures when available and to submit additional contentions if appropriate. LEA fails to see the distinction NRC staff have apparently drawn between these contentions.
While the. wording is slightly different, the intent is the same.
16.
V. CONCLUSION For the reasons enumerated above, LEA believes all of its' contentions to be admissible in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, JUDITH A. DORSEY {/
1315 Walnut St., Suite 1632 Phila., PA 19107 (215) 735-7200 Charles W. Elliott .
123 N. 5th St., Suite 101 Allentown, PA 18102 Counsel for Limerick Ecology Action l
l .
m ,y- 9 m .mg~.- m e-e--,- ,.ym + =4-i
N <ETE'
~:r?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'81 DEC 22 A11:38 On. 7 : ' E ECPir/ r-ID'. .s.13 i SEfx:Cr titAliCH I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Limerick .
Ecology Action's Reply to NRC Staff and Applicant Answers to Supplemental Petition of Coordinated Intervenors have been served, by deposit in the United States-mail, first class postage prepaid, upon the following on December 19, 1981:
Lawrence Brenner, Chairman Atomic Safety.andLicensing Board Administrative Judge Panel U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic and Safety and Licensing Dr. Richard F. Cole Appeal Panel Administrative Judge U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington,.DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 ~
Docketing and Service Section Dr. Peter A. Morris Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Robert Adler, Esq.
Stephen H. Lewis, Esq. Commonwealth of PA, DER office of Executive Legal 505 Executive House Director PO Box 2357 U.S. NRC Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, DC 20555 Martha Bush, Esq.
Trcy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. Office of Attorney General Conner and Wetterhahn Office of Consumer Advocate
.1747 Pennsylvani a Ave., NW 1425 Strawberry Sq.
Washington, DC 20006 .Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phila. Electric Co. Randall Brubaker, Esq.
ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Asst. Counsel, DER-VP.and General Counsel 1315 Walnut S t. , Rm. 1200 2301 Market St. Phila. , PA 19107 Phila., PA 19101 4
Director Thomas Gerusky, Director PEMA BRP, DER-Basement, . Transportation Fulton. Bank Bldg, 5th f1 and Safety Bldg. Third and. Locust Sts.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert Anthony Robert Sugarman, Esq.
103 vernon Lane, Box 186 Berle, Butzel, Kass, Case Moylan, PA 19065 and Sugarman 2115 Bainbridge St.
Donald Bronstein, Esq. Phila., PA 19146 14 2 5 Walnut S t . , 3rd fl Phila., PA 19102 Joseph White, III 11 S. Merion Ave.
Steven Hershey, Esq. Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Sylvania House Juniper and Locust Sts.
Phila., PA 19107 Dr. Judith Johnsrud 433 Orlando Ave.
State College, PA 16801 Marvin Lewis ,
6504 Bradford Terrace Phila., PA 19149 James M. Neill, Esq. '
Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917 Alan J. Nogee Keystone Alliance
'3700 Chestnut St. .
Phila., PA 19104 William Lochstet 119 E. Aaron Drive State College,'PA 16801 Frank R. Romano 61 Forest Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002 John Schniper, Esq.
Meeting House Law Bldg and Gallery .
Mennonite Church Road ( -
and Rte 724 '
Spring City, PA 19475 JyDITHA. DORSEY