Similar Documents at Perry |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions ML20205D4901999-02-22022 February 1999 Transcript of 990222 Informal Public Hearing on 10CFR2.206 Petition in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-105.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20155F4561998-08-26026 August 1998 Demand for Info Re False Info Allegedly Provided by Wh Clark to Two NRC Licensees.Nrc Considering Whether Individual Should Be Prohibited from Working in NRC-licensed Activities for Period of 5 Yrs ML20236V5261998-07-20020 July 1998 Computer Access & Operating Agreement Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal1998-05-21021 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal ML20216B5111998-04-0909 April 1998 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty.Denies Request for Remission of Violation C,Ea 97-430 & Orders Licensee to Pay Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 within Next 30 Days PY-CEI-NRR-2269, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective ML20216G3821998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Duquesne Light Co & Allegheny Power Systems,Inc ML20217J0661998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Dqe, Inc & Allegheny Power System,Inc ML20198P9311997-11-0707 November 1997 Comments of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc.NRC Should Require Allegheny Power Sys,Inc to Affirm That Capco Antitrust License Conditions Will Be Followed ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20133B6941996-12-18018 December 1996 Submits Ordinance 850-96 Re Approval of Merger of Centerior & Oh Edison Into Firstenergy ML20135F4731996-12-0606 December 1996 Memorandum & Order CLI-96-13.* Commission Reverses & Vacates ASLB LBP-95-17 Which Granted Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Ocre & Hiatt.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961206 ML20132A8461996-12-0202 December 1996 Resolution 20-1996 Supporting Merger of Ohio Edison & Centerior Corp Under New Holding Company Called Firstenergy ML20134M6191996-10-28028 October 1996 Proclamation of Support by City of Sandusky,Oh Re Merger of Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corp ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20108B7571996-04-26026 April 1996 Licensee Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* Recommends That Commission Reverse Board Memorandum & Order Issued 951004.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List PY-CEI-NRR-2034, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl1996-03-11011 March 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20097B8911996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement or in Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures ML20096E2471996-01-0303 January 1996 Comment on PRM 50-64 Re Stockpiling Ki for Use as Thyroid Protectant in Event of Nuclear Accident.Supports Distribution of Ki to Public ML20094N1951995-11-17017 November 1995 Oh Edison Application for License Transfer in Connection W/ Sale & Related Transactions ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6341994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20064N9201994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition. W/Svc List ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1421993-10-19019 October 1993 Order.* Petitioners Shall File Supplemental Petition in Accordance W/Schedule in 931018 Order.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931020 ML20059B1761993-10-18018 October 1993 Order.* Informs That for Each Contention,Petitioners Shall Comply Fully W/Requirements of 10CFR2.714(b)(2)(i),(ii) & (III) & Their Filing Should Address Requirements Set Forth in Regulations.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20058M8761993-09-30030 September 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-21.* Appeal for Hearing Re Amend to Plant OL Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930930 ML20057C0461993-09-21021 September 1993 Supplemental Director'S Decision DD-93-15 Involving 920929 Request for Certain Actions to Be Taken Re Proposed Construction of Interim onsite,low-level Radioactive Waste Facility at Plant.Request Denied ML20056C8951993-07-19019 July 1993 Order Extending Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of LBP-92-32.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 930720 ML20045B5661993-06-0707 June 1993 Comment Re Proposed Generic Communication on Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans,As Published in Fr on 930401 (58FR17293).Believes Concept of Technical Review Not Addressed by STS ML20044E2781993-05-13013 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercise from Annual to Biennial ML20127A6171993-01-0606 January 1993 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of Board Order LBP-92-32,dtd 921118,extended Until 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930106 ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D4761992-12-22022 December 1992 Alabama Electric Cooperative Answer to Applicants Petitions for Review.* Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5871992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review ASLB 921118 decision,LBP-92-32.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underplanning of Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A5751992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review LBP-92-32, 921118 Board Decision in Proceeding.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underpinning of Statute.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A7651992-11-18018 November 1992 Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* City of Cleveland Petition for Review Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4671992-11-16016 November 1992 Licensee Response to Lake County Commissioners 10CFR2.206 Petition.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116E7941992-09-29029 September 1992 Petition for Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Const of Low Level Radwaste at Perry Plant.* Requests Public Hearing Be Held Prior to Const of Storage Site & Const Should Be Suspended Until NRC or Util Produces EIS on Risks ML20101N5131992-07-0808 July 1992 City of Cleveland Opposition to Applicant Request That Licensing Board Disregard Certain Arguments of City of Cleveland Counsel in Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20101N6401992-07-0707 July 1992 Reply by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Applicant Request That Board Disregard Factual Issues.* Applicant Requests Board Disregard Irrelevant Assertions by All Parties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101K2101992-06-29029 June 1992 Applicants Request That Licensing Board Disregard Factual Issues Discussed During Oral Argument.* Foregoing Issues Represent Factual Issues Which Board Should Disregard in Disposition of Phase One of Case.W/Certificate of Svc ML20098D5181992-05-26026 May 1992 Reply of City of Cleveland,Oh to Arguments of Applicants & NRC Staff W/Respect to Issues of Law of Case,Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel & Laches.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090F4261992-03-31031 March 1992 Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor,City of Cleveland,Oh & Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* City of Cleveland,Oh & Applicant Motions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094K3791992-03-18018 March 1992 Applicants Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule.* Applicants Request That Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J2891992-03-0909 March 1992 Response of DOJ to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges ASLB to Resolve Bedrock Legal Issue in Negative & Concludes That Commission Possess Legal Authority to Retain License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091N1241992-01-24024 January 1992 Applicants Answer to Cleveland Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Applicants Have No Objection to Request for Opportunity to Submit Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087E7821992-01-16016 January 1992 Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Cleveland Requests That Motion Be Granted & 911114 Order Establishing Schedule for Motions for Summary Disposition Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086U5371992-01-0606 January 1992 Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Board Grant Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Due to Lack of NRC Authority to Retain Antitrust License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J4821991-12-31031 December 1991 Reply Brief of City of Cleveland,Oh in Support of Notice of Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order Granting Request for Hearing.* Appeal Should Be Granted,Ref to Board Revoked & Applications Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9231991-12-27027 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply & Reply to Applicants Answer to City Motion for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3001991-12-24024 December 1991 Applicant Answer to Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision. * W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H7161991-12-19019 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N4601991-12-17017 December 1991 Licensees Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc & SL Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Determines That Intervenor Failed to Demonstrate Interest in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086J4741991-12-0909 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply Brief.* Motion to File Reply Should Be Granted for Listed Reasons ML20086G4001991-11-26026 November 1991 Ohio Edison Co Motion for Reconsideration.* Util Respectfully Requests That NRC Vacate CLI-91-15 & Direct Forthwith Answer to Licensee Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079Q0301991-11-0606 November 1991 Oec Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories.* Util Moves Board to Compel NRC to Respond Completely,Explicitly & Properly to Licensee Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B5841991-09-0606 September 1991 Licensee Answer to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Has Shown No Interest in Proceeding.W/Notice of Appearance,Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20076D1611991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc (AMP-Ohio) for Leave to Intervene.* Util Does Not Object to Admission of AMP-Ohio as Intervenor on Basis of Status as Beneficiary.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0481991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric & Toledo Edison to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio for Leave to Intervene.* Utils Believe That 910703 Petition Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081K8961991-06-20020 June 1991 Alabama Electric Cooperative Reply to Oppositions Filed to Petition to Intervene.* Informs of Util Intention to Assure Vindication of Proper Legal Principle.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2391991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio,To Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene.* ML20079D2211991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland, Oh to Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2161991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* AEC Has Not Met Burden of Satisfying Regulatory & Common Law Requirements.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-09
[Table view] |
Text
,
February 5, 1985 Y'- lC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *c r -..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'O .1f0 :J3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,_ ,
In the Matter of )
)
THE. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ot ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441 o [,
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION B The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Pow;er Company, and The Toledo Edison Company (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R._5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Contention B. As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to-any fact material to Contention B, and Applicants are
' entitled to a decision in'their. favor'on Contention B as a matter of law.
PDR ADOCK 05000440
. ..Q.. PDR ..,
___. f-- -~
l i
This motion is supported by:
- 1. " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine-Issue To Be Heard On Contention B";
- 2. " Affidavit of Daniel D. Hulbert on Contention B"
("Hulbert Affidavit"); ,
- 3. " Affidavit of Gary Winters on Contention B" (" Winters Affidavit");
- 4. " Affidavit of Scott T. McCandless on Contention B"
("McCandless Affidavit");
- 5. " Affidavit of Richard R. Bowers on Contention B"
(" Bowers Affidavit");
- 6. " Affidavit of Kevin Holtzclaw on Contention B"
("Holtzclaw Affidavit"); and 7..Section II.A of " Applicants' Motion For Sur.imary Disposition of Issue 14" (January 14, 1985) (articulating the legal standards applicable to a motion for summary disposition).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prior to the availability of offsite emergency plans for the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, the Board admitted a very broad emergency planning contention, Issue 1:
Applicants' emergency evacuation plans do not demonstrate that they provide, reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
in the event of an emergency.
See LBP-81-24, 14 N.R.C. 175, 189 (1981), as modified by LBP-81-35, 14 N.R.C. 682, 686 (1981).' .The Board subsequently noted that the words " State and local",should be substituted
- for the word " Applicants'" in the wording of the contention.
See LBP-84-28,:20 N.R.C. 129, 130 n.1 (1984).
m
After well-developed offsite plans had been publicly available for some time, Applicants (with the support of the Staff) moved for a Board order requiring the particularization of the broad contention. 'he T Board granted Applicants' motion, directing Intervenor to "specify in a written filing the specific inadequacies alleged to exist in the draft local and State emergency plans * * *." See LB7 28', 20 N.R.C. at 132.
Contention B was initially advanced in "Suni.1ower Alliance's Particularized Objections To Proposed Emergency Plans In Support of Issue No. I" (August 20, 1984). Over the opposition of Applicants and the Staff, the Board admitted a form of that contention. As admitted by the Board,l/
Contention B alleges:
Evacuation route impediments have not been identified or considered; neither has evacuation of construction workers on-site nor has a low or no power operation at Perry during extreme conditions of inclement weather been included in the plans.
" Memorandum and Order-(Admissibility of Contentions on Emergency-Plans and-Motion To Dismiss)" (January 10, 1985), at 6.
As the Board has noted, discovery on emergency planning issues in this proceeding has been completed. See January 10, 1985 Memorandum and Order, at 5. Further, the schedule 1/- The Board expressly rejected all allegations of the proposed contention which are not included in tie contention as-framed by the Board. See January 10, 1985 Memorandum and Order, at 5.
~
proposed by Applicants establishes February 5, 1985 as the last day for filing summary disposition motions. See January 18,
! 1985 Letter, Counsel for Applicants to Licensing Board;
-Conference Call between the Board and the parties, February 1, 1985. Accordingly, the instant motion is timely, and Contention B is ripe for summary disposition.
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS A. Summary Disposition
[ Section II.A of " Applicants' Motion For Summary l
Disposition of Issue 14" (January 14, 1985) sets forth the legal standards applicable to a motion for summary disposition.
The discussion there is fully applicable to this Motion and is incorporated by reference herein.
B. Substantive Law The Commission's emergency planning regulations, at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10), require, in relevant part, that:
[a] range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for * *
The ' standards embodied in the emergency planning regulations are further' addressed by NUREG-0654/PEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For
-Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness In Support of Nuclear Power Plants"
.(Rev. 1, November 1980). NUREG-0654 Criterion J.10.k provides that offsite plans shall include:
a
.a 8
- k. Identification of and $
. means for dealing with _
potential impediments (e.g., =
~
seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation -
routes, and contingency J measures. g In addition, NUREG-0654 Criterion J.4 specifies that "
~
onsite emergency plans shall provide for:
4
- the evacuation of 2 onsite non-essential 3 personnel in the event of a g Site or General Emergency ;
1 -
III. ARGUMENT 5
Applying the Commission's summary disposition standards to I the facts of this case, it is clear that the instant motion for i summary disposition of Contention B should be granted. :
A. Evacuation Route Impediments Sunflower's assertion that "[e]vacuation route impediments have not been identified or considered" is -- quite simply --
wrong. To the contrary, potential evacuation route impediments (such as snow and disabled vehicles) have been identified and considered and, as indicated in the plans and procedures, .
I resources such as tow trucks and snowplows are utilized to keep evacuation routes clear. Winters Affidavit, 1 2. In addition, the evacuation time estimate study includes an appendix devoted specifically to consideration of route impediments such as traffic accidents and disabled vehicles. McCandless Affidavit, 1 4.
The evacuation time estimate study also specifically considered the effects of a snowstorm on evacuation.
McCandless Affidavit,-1 3. The jurisdictions within the EPZ are particularly well prepared to handle snow -- the only example of a route impediment ci ad in " Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections to Proposed Emergency Plans in Support of Issue No. I" (August 20, 1984), at 3. Because the agencies charged with responsibility for snow removal within the EPZ are equipped and staffed to keep the roads passable in a normal " snowbelt" snowfall, normal snow conditions require no special consideration in emergency planning for the Perry EPZ.
Winters Affidavit, 1 3.
-Further, most of the road departments within the plume EPZ
-could keep roads passable with no assistance even during a blizzard. And, in the unlikely event of an emergency at Perry during a blizzard, the resources of all rond departments throughout Lake, Ashtabula, and Geauga Counties would be made available to augment the resources of any road departments within the plume EPZ which might need assistance in keeping roads passable.2/ With the assistance of these road .
departments from'outside the EPZ, the few road departments within the EPZ which may need assistance will have sufficient jh/- Indeed, under particularly inclement weather conditions (i.e., snow accompanied by high winds), only the downwind sector of the EPZ is likely to be affected by an emergency at Perry. Therefore, should-evacuation be indicated in such conditions, the snow removal resources of the three counties could be concentrated on the sector of the EPZ to be evacuated. . Winters Affidavit, 1 4, n.5.
6
i 3
snow removal resources to keep the roads clear in a blizzard.
Winters Affidavit, 1 4. Even a partial survey of road departments within the three counties reveals an impressive inventory of snow removal equipment; and additional snow removal equipment is available locally from other road departments in the three county area which were not surveyed.
Winters Affidavit, 1 5. Still more snow removal equipment (if needed) would be provided from outside the three counties, through the Ohio Department of Transportation. Winters Affidavit, 1 6. For all these reasons, the first part of Contention B lacks merit.
B. Construction Workers The second part of Contention B claims that the emergency plans'od not include the evacuation of construction workers on-site. This claim is simply incorrect. As set forth i'n the Hulbert Affidavit, the Perry Emergency Plan and implementing procedures explicitly provide for the evacuation of all personnel without emergency response functions, such as construction workers on-site, and even describes the evacution routes to be used. Hulbert Affidavit, 1 2. These personnel would be evacuated on a Site Area Emergency. Id. In addition, the evacuation time estimate study prepared for the Perry plume exposure pathway EPZ explicitly considers the evacuation of on-site construction workers. McCandless Affidavit, 1 5.
Thus, Sunflower is wrong in asserting that the evacuation of on-site construction workers has not been considered.
C. Low Power /No Power Operation The final aspect of Contention B argues that the emergency plans are inadequate because they do not include " low or no power operation at Perry during extreme conditions of inclement --
weather."
Although Sunflower did not elaborate on its contention, the logic implicit in this argument appears to be that because (1) evacuation is the only appropriate protective action should there be an accident at Perry with significant off-site consequences; and because (2) evacuation would be impossible during extreme conditions of inclement weather; therefore (3) Perry should be limited to low power or no power operation during such weather conditions so that an accident requiring evacuation does not occur. -
None of these three subarguments are supportable, as shown by .
the Bowers, Winters, and Holtzclaw Affidavits.
l The first subargument is that evacuation is the only acceptable protective action (and therefore if evacuation is impossible because of immobilizing weather, low or no power operation should be mandated). Commission regulation and regulatory guidance demonstrates that there is "a range of protective actions"; evacuation is not the only permissible step. 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10); NUREG-0654, at 59; Bower Affidavit, 1 4. Sheltering is an acceptable protective action as recognized by NRC, FEMA and EPA. NUREG-0654 at 9, 20, 1-12, 1016; EPA 520/1-78-001 Pt. II at 53; Bowers Affidavit, 1 5.3/
3/ See also Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant),
LBP-84-32, 20 N.R.C. 601, 691 (1984) (sheltering is (Continued next page) l
k p
EPA guidance indicates that sheltering would be recommended where (1) the projected dose exceeds the Protective Action 0 Guides by more than a few fold and timely evacuation is not feasible, or (2) where the projected dose does not exceed the PAG by more than a few fold. Sheltering in the average home reduces whole body dose by a factor of 2.5 to 3 and radiciodine and particulate dose by factors of 4 to 70 (depending on air change rates). Bowers Affidavit, 1 7. Respiratory protection ;
would further reduce doses. Id., 1 8. Furthermore, the
-meteorological conditions which would accompany the inclement weather conditions postulated by Sunflower would in themselves sharply reduce the doses to the public, because of the substantial dispersion. Id., 1 3.
The second of Sunflower's subarguments is similarly unsupportable. The kinds of winter storm conditions that
-Sunflower might consider to be an " immobilizing period of i
inclement weather" are very unusual in the EPZ area. -Based on .
I a study of 29 years of. data, the frequency of a 12-inch snowstorm is about 0.20 mean days.per season. Winters Affidavit, 1 7.. Adding the high winds which would accompany a blizzard would make the frequency even smaller. Id . - Even t-.
L-f (Continued) appropriate protective action where evacuation is impractical.or cannot be timely implemented, such as-N' '
' adverse weather conditions). Southern California Edison L .Co.~(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39, 15 N.R.C. 1163, 1184 (1982) (sheltering is-preferable when there is inadequate lead time due.to x severe weather-conditions).
4 i - -w-,,e.- .v.., - - - . .-.,.-o-_ -, -- . , , , , ..,.-._,-,.,e-.m.,4, - - - . . . - . , , , - , , - - . - - - . . - - -_
. --i,--. .- -_ --
/
under " worst case" blizzard conditions, the counties could keep the evacuation routes open by focusing the resources within the t
t I
three counties on the EPZ evacuation routes. Id., 1 8.
l k l Although there have been examples of particular blizzards which left some roads impassable for a few days, in those few cases l
there was no attempt to marshall available resources to clear a particular area. Id., 1 9. In any event, there is no requirement that evacuation be feasible under all foreseeable -
circumstances. Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), }
supra, at 691.
The final part of Sunflower's argument is the unsupported assumption that the risk of an accident would be reduced of the plant were required to go to low power or no power operation during extreme conditions of inclement weather. This assumption is rebutted by the Holtzclaw Affidavit.
The likelihood of an accident with the potential for core damage and fission product release is essentially the same, regardless of whether the reactor is at full power, low power or no power within the first day following full power operation. Holtzclaw Affidavit, 1 4. This is because the ability of water delivery systems to supply adequate core cooling is not affected by low or no power operation. Id. The accident sequences with the potential for core damage require multiple failures which are unrelated to full, low or no power operation. Id. Therefore, the likelihood of accident progression is not reduced by a decrease in reactor power.
Id., 1 5.
L.--.,_______-_ _ _ __ _ _ _ -
The consequences of the highly improbable accident causing a s.ignificant offsite release of radiation are negligibly different whether the plant is at full, low or no power operation during a period of inclement whether. Id., 1 6. At low power operation, there is essentially no change in fission product inventory. Id. At no power, there is little appreciable change for many hours. Id. and attached graph. In sum, the fission product inventory in the core is relatively insensitive to the time after shutdown.
Taking all three subparts of this aspect of the contention, it is clear that a low /no power requirement is not justified. First, sheltering can be an effective protective action. Secondly, it is unlikely that even a blizzard will substantially delay evacuation should that be appropriate. And third, low power or no power operation when the postulated extreme weather conditions occur would not significantly reduce either the probability or the consequences of an accident with significant off-site doses.
o
?
IV. CONCLUSION Because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard on the issues of evacuation route impediments, the j
evacuation of construction workers, or low power /no power operation, Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Contention B should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, 1
/ 1(n
TTMAN, POTTS & BRIDGE 1 M Street, N.W.
W hin ton, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Counsel for Applicants Dated: February 5, 1985 e
e 4.