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:ORDERS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20126A5461992-12-10010 December 1992 Order.* Requests That Answers to Petition for Review Be Filed No Later than 921223.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 921210 ML20062C2561990-10-18018 October 1990 Memorandum & Order (Cancelling Scheduled Hearing).* W/ Certificate of Svc.Served on 901019.Reserved on 901025 ML20059M6521990-09-27027 September 1990 Memorandum & Order (Dispensing W/Prefiled Testimony).* Advises That Hearing Dates Will Remain as Specified in ASLB 900829 Order & Requirement for Prefiled Testimony Will Be Dispensed.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900927 ML20059M6741990-09-27027 September 1990 Corrected Memorandum & Order (Dispensing W/Prefiled Testimony).* Hearing Dates Will Remain as Specified in Order of 900829 & Requirement for Prefiled Testimony Will Be Dispensed.Served on 901001 ML20059C4481990-08-29029 August 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Advises That Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled to Commence on 901016,postponed Until 901030 to Accommodate NRC Witness & in Absence of Objection. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 900830 ML20056B2071990-08-0707 August 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Grants Motion for Mod of Hearing Schedule Adopted in 900723 Memorandum & Order.New Schedule as Indicated.Served on 900807.W/Certificate of Svc ML20055J1391990-07-23023 July 1990 Memorandum & Order (Denying Staff & Licensee Motions for Reconsideration).* Licensee & NRC Motions for Reconsideration Denied & Ocre Admitted as Party. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900723.Reserved on 900726 ML20151T4731988-04-26026 April 1988 Order Dismissing Proceeding.* Licensee Withdrew Petition Re Proposed Amend to Tech Specs Re MSIV Leakage Control Sys. Proceedings Terminated by Board Upon Participant Agreement W/Course of Action.Served on 880426 ML20150C5611988-03-16016 March 1988 Order.* Vacates 880301 Order Setting Schedule for Filing of Contentions & Responses & for Holding Prehearing Conference. Participants Felt Schedule Should Be Vacated Pending Determination of Future Proceeding Course.Served on 880317 ML20147D4771988-03-0101 March 1988 Memorandum & Order.* Order Granting Prehearing Conference on 880421 to Permit Participants to Meet & Confer in Attempt to Settle Disputed Issues,To Frame Agreed Contentions & Narrow Issues.Served on 880302 ML20211J3881986-11-0707 November 1986 Memorandum & Order CLI-86-22,directing Issuance of Full Power OL for Unit 1.Separate Views of Commissioner Asselstine Attached.Served on 861107 ML20211G4971986-10-30030 October 1986 Memorandum & Order CLI-86-20 Denying State of Oh Request to Intervene Under 10CFR2.715(c) Informal Adjudicatory Proceeding,Due to Not Meeting Stds for Late Filings & for Reopening Record.Served on 861030.Re-served on 861031 ML20203M9631986-09-0404 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Denying Ocre 860827 Request to Postpone 860905 Meeting to Consider Issuance of Full Power License. Served on 860904 ML20212P7081986-09-0202 September 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860929 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-841 Which Is Same Date to Review ALAB-844. Served on 860902 ML20214K7691986-08-18018 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of ALAB-841.Petition Renews Arguments Previously Advanced in Ocre Appellate Brief & Found W/O Merit.Served on 860819 ML20203C8951986-04-18018 April 1986 Memorandum & Order CLI-86-07 Denying Ocre 860203 Motion to Reopen Record in Facility OL Proceeding to Admit New Contention Re Adequacy of Facility Seismic Design.Served on 860418 ML20205M7461986-04-14014 April 1986 Order Modifying 860408 Memorandum & Order to Permit Testimony of P Talwani on or Before 860505.Served on 860414 ML20155A9581986-04-0808 April 1986 Memorandum & Order Denying Ocre 860203 Motion to Reopen Record in OL Proceeding in Washington,Dc to Litigate Adequacy of Seismic Design.Hearings Generally Conducted in Vicinity of Facility.Served on 860409 ML20155A6101986-04-0808 April 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860530 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-86-4.Served on 860408 ML20154R7461986-03-27027 March 1986 Order Granting Ocre Motion for Leave to Reply to Util & NRC Responses Re Ocre Motion to Reopen Record in OL Proceeding. Prehearing Conference Scheduled for 860403,not 860408.Served on 860322 ML20154Q3721986-03-20020 March 1986 Order for Parties to Notify Aslab of Names & Telephone Numbers of Persons Participating in Prehearing Telcon on 860408 Re Ocre 860203 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit New Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 860320 ML20154K2791986-03-0707 March 1986 Order That Applicant May Move for Leave to Resubmit Unacceptable Figures Re Seismic Design in 860225 Response to Motion of Intervenor Ocre & Provide Corrected Figures to ASLBP by 860324.Served on 860307 ML20137X4481986-03-0505 March 1986 Order Granting Ocre Motion to Strike a Notafrancesco 860128 Affidavit on Ground That Affidavit Contains Unsolicited, extra-record Opinion Testimony Re Hydrogen Control Rule. Served on 860305 ML20141N1981986-02-27027 February 1986 Memorandum & Order Denying & Dismissing,In Part,Motion to Reopen Record to Submit New Contentions.Dissenting Opinion of WR Johnson Encl.Served on 860228 ML20136J4591986-01-0909 January 1986 Order Advising That Supplemental Briefs,Addressing Listed Questions Re Consolidated Appeal of Board 850220 Partial Initial Decision,Must Be Filed by 860127.Served on 860110 ML20136E6331986-01-0303 January 1986 Memorandum & Order Informing That Pending Appeals of Sunflower Alliance & Ocre Will Be Decided Based on Briefs Supplemented by Memoranda Re Listed Questions on Hydrogen Control.Served on 860106 ML20138D1961985-12-10010 December 1985 Order Vacating 851120 Order Scheduling 851219 Oral Argument on Pending Appeals.Decision on Whether to Reschedule Argument or Treat Appeals as Submitted on Briefs to Be Made. Served on 851211 ML20137H1071985-11-27027 November 1985 Order Partially Granting Applicant 851121 Motion to Increase Page Limit for Appeal Brief.Brief Not More than 100 Pages May Be Filed.Served on 851127 ML20136D4431985-11-20020 November 1985 Order Directing NRC to File & Serve Brief in Response to Briefs of Intervenors Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy & Sunflower Alliance by 851206.Served on 851120 ML20136D7671985-11-20020 November 1985 Order Requesting Name of Person Presenting Argument at 851219 Hearing Re Intervenors Appeal from ASLB 850903 Concluding Partial Initial Decision (LBP-85-35) by 851206. Served on 851120 ML20138H3101985-10-24024 October 1985 Order Denying Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 850925 Application for Stay Pendente Lite of ASLB 850903 Partial Initial Decision (LBP-85-35) on Emergency Planning,Hydrogen Control & Diesel Generators.Served on 851025 ML20133E8141985-10-0404 October 1985 Memorandum & Order Clarifying ASLB 850903 Concluding Partial Initial Decision & Finding 55 Re Emergency Kits.Kits Should Be Made Available at Each Reception Area Prior to Issuance of Low Power License.Served on 851007 ML20135H8571985-09-23023 September 1985 Order Allowing Ocre to Resubmit Motion for Stay Pendente Lite of Effectiveness of Inter alia,850903 Decision,In Legible Form No Later than 850927.Served on 850923 ML20134N5271985-09-0303 September 1985 Concluding Partial Initial Decision LBP-85-35 on Emergency Planning Hydrogen Control & Diesel Generator Contentions & Authorizing NRR to Issue OLs W/Listed Conditions.Served on 850904 ML20134N5551985-08-30030 August 1985 Memorandum & Order Dismissing Intervenor,Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Motion to Reopen Record to Submit New Contention Re Applicant Request for Exemption from One Testing Requirement in 10CFR50,App J.Served on 850903 ML20134H3831985-08-23023 August 1985 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Leave to Respond to Applicant Reply to Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Submitted by Other Parties.Served on 850826 ML20129A2391985-07-11011 July 1985 Errata Correcting Transcript of 850409-12 & 0430-0503 Hearings Re Emergency Planning Contention.Served on 850712 ML20128G6201985-05-28028 May 1985 Memorandum & Order Denying Ocre 850430 Motion to Reopen Hearing Record on Issue 16 Re Reliability of Diesel Generators.Served on 850529 ML20054M7681982-07-12012 July 1982 Memorandum & Order Admitting New Contentions on Polymer Degradation from Radiation Exposure,Psychological Stress & Des Improper Consideration of Local Economic Benefits ML20054H7511982-06-22022 June 1982 Order Extending Time Until 820709 for Commission to Consider Whether to Review ALAB-675 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
. _. - . .__ __ - _ . . . . . . ~ -~ . . _ _. .- . _ . _
. ?
l
' t' / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00jgETED 1 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL EOARD 2
~1k5 FES 28 h0:41 4
Administrative Judges:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 'O'a h!27, 1986 i Dr. W. Reed. Johnson Fp4ALAHg31)
~" '
- Howard A. Wilber i
)
- In the 3atter of ) ElYED FEB 28 7986 -
) ,
i
, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Doctet Nos. 50-440 OL COMPANY, ~ET AL. ~
) 50-441 OL
- )
- Gerry Nuclear Power Plant, ) i Units I and 2) )
)
4 Susan L. Hiatt, Mentor, Ohio, for the intervenor, Ohio $
i Citizens for Responsible Energy. ,
~'
f Jay E. Silberg and Harry H. Glasspiegel, Washington, .
- D.C., for the applicants, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. :
i
, Colleen P. Woodhead for the Nuclear Regulatory j Cotytis .; ion sta f f, !
i l'
', MEMORAUDUM AND ORDER -
9 i t
] This operating license proceeding involving the Perry ,
nuclear facility is currently before us on appeals by .
intervenora Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE) and !
e l
Sunflower Alliance from the Licensing Board's concluding I
L partial initial decision.1 OCRE has now rioved to reopen the ;
record for the purpose of permitting its submission of new 4
l contentions. These contentions relate to two matters that ,
l See LEF-85-35, 22 NRC 514 (1985).
me nrMa44 G
4
- 2 were not the subject of prior Licensing Board consideration
(1) the deletion of elements of the applicants' fire i protection program from the facility's technical specifications; and (2) the applicants' request that they be permitted to operate the facility for protracted periods at 70% of rated power with only one of two primary coolant recirculation loops operable.2 OCRE maintains that it has satisfied the well-established tripartite test governing the reopening of an j
evidentiary record to consider new evidence:
a ,
(1) Is the motion timely? (2) Does it address significant safety (or environmental) issues? (3)
Might a different result have been reached had the 4
newlyprofjeredmaterialbeenconsidered i initially?
2 Motion to Reopen the Record and to Submit Now Contentions (December 12, 1985) (" Motion"). On February 3, 1986, OCRE filed a second motion to reopen the record, based upon the earthquake that occurred in the vicinity of the Perry facility a few days earlier. That motion remains under consideration and will be decided in a subsequent order.
3 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598, 11 NRC 876, 879 i (1980) , cited with approval in Metropolitan Edicon Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 285 n.3 (1985). The Commission's use of this test has received judicial approval. Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. v. NRC, 771 F.2d 720, 732 (3d Cir. 1985), petition for cert. filed sub nom., Aamodt v. NRC, 54 U.S.L.W. 3463 (U.S.
3 Dec. 18, 1985) (No. 85-1095), citing San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. HRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1316-18 (D.C. Cir. 1984),
vacated in part and reh'q en banc granted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (1985).
i' (Footnote Continued) i l
i
3 In opposing 'c ne motion, however, both the applicants and the F
NRC staff insist that the test has not been met because the matters on which reopening is sought lack safety significance.4 For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied in part and dismissed in part.
A. Fire Protection. Each operating nuclear power plant is required to have a fire protection plan (i.e.,
program) that satisfies General Design Criterion 3 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.5 OCRE does not dispute that the Perry facility has such a program. Nor does it ,
challenge the adequacy of any particular provision of the program. Rather, OCRE seeks to reopen the record to litigate what is essentially a legal question having nothing to do with the quality of the fire protection arrangements (Footnote Continued)
Because its motion seeks to inject new issues into the proceeding, OCRE also addressed the five factors set forth in 10 CFR 2,714 (a) (1) , which control the acceptance or rejection of late-filed contentions. See Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983). As will later appear, however, it is unnecessary for us to consider here the sufficiency of OCRE's showing on those factors.
See Applicants' Answer to OCRE Motion to Reopen the Record and to Submit New Contentions (December 30, 1985);
NRC Staff Response to Motion to Reopen the Record Filed by Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (January 2, 1986)
(" Staff Response") . The applicants, but not the staff, also argue that the motion was untimely. Intervenor Sunflower Alliance did not respond to the motion.
5 See 10 CFR 50.48 (a).
t 1
4 for Perry: whether Commission regulations require that all elements of a facility's fire protection program be l incorporated in the technical specifications for that I
facility. The question arises here because, in a November 29, 1985 letter to the lead applicant, the staff agreed that some of the Perry fire protection program elements could be deleted from the technical specifications and, "in lieu thereof," documented in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).6 According to OCRE, this consent violated the provisions of 10 CFR 50.36 (c) (2) with respect to the required content of technical specifications.
The short answer is that GCRE's interpretation of section 50.36 (c) (2) is wide of the mark. Not only does the See letter from Walter R. Butler to Murray E.
Edelman, reproduced as Attachment 3 to OCRE's motion. The letter went on to state that the administrative control elements of the fire protection program were to be retained in the technical specifications.
Motion at 1-2. Section 50.36 (c) provides that
, technical specifications are to include items in several enumerated categories. Por its part, subsection (2) is concerned with one of those categories: limiting conditions for operation. It explains that such conditions are the lowest functional capability or l performance levels of equipment required for safe l operation of the facility. When a limiting l condition for operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the l technical specification until the condition can be met. . . .
l
,,%s__ _.-,.-,.i 4.eM.4 - - + 5 e_ m 2. _w- _ -v _3%k m. 4
- 5
- section make no specific reference to fire protection programs,.but, more important, the Statement of 1
Consideration accompanying its revision in 1968 contains a !
- clear indication of a Commission purpose to limit the scope I of operating license technical specifications to "those items that are directly related to maintaining the integrity of the physical barriers designed to contain radioactivity."8 Manifestly, a fire protection program is not such an item.
i We need only add that, even were the application of section 50.36 (c) (2) to. fire protection programs a closer question, we would still be disinclined to reopen the record ,
j on that question. For, in all events, OCRE has failed to 4
I 8
33 Fed. Reg. 18,610 (1968). See, in this connection ,
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),
ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 271-74 (1979) ("as best we can discern i it, the contemplation of both the [ Atomic Energy] Act and ;
the [ Commission) regulations is that technical specifications are to be reserved for those matters as to which the imposition of rigid conditions or limitations upon i reactor operation is deemed necessary to obviate the
! possibility of an abnormal situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety"). 1 It is worthy of passing note that, in a subsequent l l discussion of certain proposed changes to its regulations !
! pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power ,
- reactors, the Commission stressed the distinction between
- functions considered of "immediate importance to safety" and
"[o]ther functions, such as those associated with the
! mitigation of the effects of natural or man-made phenomena i (fires, floods, earthquakes, etc. ) . " 47 Fed. Reg. 13,369, ;
13,371 (1982). 1 s
. . .-- ~- .- - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - - , . - ---- - - . -
6 4
demonstrate that the exclusion of certain portions of the Perry fire protection program from the technical specifications has serious safety implications. Nor could it. The staff informs us that, consistent with a recommendation of the NRC Chairman, it has imposed an actual license condition requiring Unit 1 of the Perry facility to comply with its fire protection program. Thus, there is I
no room for any claim that the enforceability of the applicants' commitment to carrying out the program has been impaired by the transfer of portions of it from the technical specifications to the FSAR.
, B. Single Loop Operation. The other contentions that OCRE would inject into the proceeding at this late date are rooted in the applicants' request that they be permitted to operate the Perry facility at up to 70% of rated thermal power with only one of the two primary coolant recirculation loops operable. In OCRE's view, significant safety problems will attend upon a grant of the request.
10 Staff Response at 7.
11 I* s of littic moment here that, as the staff's response observes (ibid.), fire protection requirements have been included in the technical specifications of other operating licenses. For it does not follow from that fact that such inclusion is required by Commission regulation.
Cf. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-824, 22 NRC 776, 781 (1985).
7 The staff, however, tells us that it has not as yet
" evaluated the request, nor reached a conclusion on its merits."12 The staff further notq that in no event will any low-power license that mayjbecissued for Perry permit single loop operation (i.e., should the applicants'. request be granted, only the. full-power license will be affected).13 Clearly, should the staf f eventually turn down the applicants' request,I4 OCRE's concerns respecting single loop operation will be totally academic. This being so, no good reason appears for deciding, in advance of staff action on the request, whether the record should be reopened to ventilate those concerns -- i.e., for rendering what would 1
be essentially an advisory opinion on the merits of OCRE's contentions embodying the concerns. Accordingly, we dismiss those contentions at this juncture, without prejudice to i
12 Staff Response at 8.
13 '
Id. at 8-9. Because, as of this writing, Perry has not received even a fuel loading authorization, the possible issuance of a full-power license is not imminent and thus the staff is not under severe time pressure to act upon the 1 request. Indeed, in response to a telephone inquiry, d
counsel for the staff advised the Secretary to this Board l that it will likely be several more months before a decision is reached. According to counsel, the staff will require additional information from the applicants, at least some of which will not be available until after the applicants 1 receive a low-power license for Perry.
1 14 It is by no means certain that the request will be honored. Some similar requests have been granted and others denied. Id. at p. 9, p.8.
e 8
their possible renewal if and when the staff allows singie loop operation.15 Motion denied, in part, and dismissed, in part, without prejudice.
15 Despite the facts that the staff has.not as yet decided whether to allow single loop operation and may deny the applicants' request, the OCRE motion apparently prompted the staff to consider the precise concerns set forth in the motion. Each of those concerns is addressed in a joint affidavit of two members of the branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation responsible for the review of boiling water reactor systems, which was attached to the staff's response to OCRE's motion. Those reviewers concluded that none of OCRE's concerns raises a significant safety issue. Joint Affidavit of Laurence E. Phillips and George Thomas Concerning Single Loop Operation Contentions Raised by "OCRE" (December 24, 1985)..
Although we need not now appraise the reasons assigned.
in the affidavit for that conclusion, one thing is clear:
there is nothing now before us that would bring those reasons into question. In the event that the staff should ultimately approve single loop operation, any attempt by OCRE to challenge that approval perforce will have to explain why the staff analysis is wrong (i.e., why'such operation does pose a significant safety threat). Mere allegations to that effect will not be enough to satisfy the standard for reopening an evidentiary record. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 363 (1981). Nor, absent a concrete demonstration of probable staff error, would OCRE stand much chance of surviving a balancing of the five section 2.714 (a) (1) lateness factors that determine the acceptability of eleventh-hour contentions. See note 3, supra. This is because a particularly important factor is
- the extent to which the participation of the contention's submitter "may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record."
i
w
.1 4
9 l 3 .$
l ,
It is-so ORDERED.
L i . . .
- 1 j FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 1
4
- b. k __ E:
, C. gan . S hoemaker 3
Secretary to the Appeal Board 1 .
- The" opinion of Dr. Johnson, dissenting in part,.1 follows.
t 1
(
f P
J l
b 1
4 1
3 I.
l h.
T i
i 4 i'
- - - -.-n * -, y..g,qrw g , ,.,,,cg, ,.-,,.9 9 .y .. , p,%,,, . ,_,,-, 3, ,,. ,p.o, _ . , , 9, _y, .
10
' Opinion of Dr. Johnson, dissenting in part:
OCRE's motion to reopen sets forth objections to 7
several specific aspects of applicants' request for single loop operation at 70% power. On the basis of information contained in the responses to the motion by the applicants and staff, the Perry FSAR, and the applicants' FSAR Amendment 22,1 it is entirely possible to conclude that there is no safety significance to the issues raised by OCRE. I believe we should deny the second portion of OCRE's motion on its merits now, without regard to the staff's ultimate resolution of applicants' request.
I i
a i
1 Attachment (FSAR Appendix 15F, "PNPP Single Loop Operation Analysis") to a letter.from Murray-R. Edelman to Harold R. Denton (November 20, 1985).