|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20209H6691999-07-12012 July 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Elimination of Requirement for Licensees to Update Inservice Insp & Inservice Testing Programs Beyond Baseline Adition & Addenda of ASME BPV Code ML20203G6131998-01-26026 January 1998 Affidavit of RG Byram Justifying That Redacted Portions of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditings Interim Rept 739459-97,dtd 971015 Be Withheld from Public Disclosure ML20203G6031997-12-0404 December 1997 Affidavit of RG Byram Justifying That Redacted Portions of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditings Rept 739459-1-97,dtd 971201 Be Withheld from Public Disclosure PLA-4330, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control1995-06-0808 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control PLA-4193, Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-9-2 Submitted Ocre Requesting That NRC Revise Regulations to Provide Public Access to Info Held by Licensees But Not Submitted to Nrc.Urges NRC to Deny Ocre Petition in Entirety1994-08-31031 August 1994 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-9-2 Submitted Ocre Requesting That NRC Revise Regulations to Provide Public Access to Info Held by Licensees But Not Submitted to Nrc.Urges NRC to Deny Ocre Petition in Entirety ML20046A9531993-07-20020 July 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Opposes Rule ML20045F7971993-06-21021 June 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Mods to fitness-for-duty Program Requirements.Supports Rule in Part & Opposes Rule in Part ML20045D7461993-06-21021 June 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Mods to fitness-for-duty Program Requirements.Disagrees W/Maintaining 100% Rate for Contractor & Vendor Employees ML20044F8361993-05-24024 May 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Opposes Rules ML20044F7511993-05-24024 May 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. PLA-3744, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 52 Re Training & Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant.Expresses Concerns of Potential for Inconsistent & Inappropriate Application by Individual NRC Inspectors & Examiners1992-03-0909 March 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 52 Re Training & Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant.Expresses Concerns of Potential for Inconsistent & Inappropriate Application by Individual NRC Inspectors & Examiners PLA-3568, Comments Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Incorporating 1986 -1988 Addenda & 1989 Editions of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Iii,Div 1 & Section Xi,Div 1,by Ref Into 10CFR50.55a1991-04-0808 April 1991 Comments Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Incorporating 1986 -1988 Addenda & 1989 Editions of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Iii,Div 1 & Section Xi,Div 1,by Ref Into 10CFR50.55a PLA-3462, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal.Proposed Rule,W/Enhancements Recommended by Numarc,Will Provide More Stable Basis for Util Planning & Development of Future Power Plants1990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal.Proposed Rule,W/Enhancements Recommended by Numarc,Will Provide More Stable Basis for Util Planning & Development of Future Power Plants ML19332G5261989-12-0606 December 1989 Comments on Draft Reg Guide DG-1001, Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Industry Has Made Substantial Progress Re Maint Performance as Indicated by Respective Performance Indicators,Commission Insps & Plant Conditions PLA-3175, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants1989-03-29029 March 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ML20235V4001989-03-0202 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Program at Nuclear Plants.Proposed Maint Rule Has Potential to Significantly Undermine Util Initiatives & Direct Limited Resources Away from Real Improvements in Maint PLA-3157, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule Not Needed & Will Not Serve to Increase Commission Ability to Ensure Nuclear Plants Reliably Maintained1989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule Not Needed & Will Not Serve to Increase Commission Ability to Ensure Nuclear Plants Reliably Maintained PLA-3118, Comment Endorsing NUMARC Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Rule1988-11-17017 November 1988 Comment Endorsing NUMARC Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Rule ML20247N7531988-07-28028 July 1988 Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-53 Requesting NRC Action to Review Undue Risk Posed by BWR Thermal Hydraulic Instability.Nrr Should Issue Order Requiring All GE BWRs to Be Placed in Cold Shutdown for Stated Reasons PLA-3019, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Announcements of Inspectors.Nrc Does Not Fully Appreciate Impact of Rule as Written.Encourages Commission to Abandon Rulemaking1988-04-15015 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Announcements of Inspectors.Nrc Does Not Fully Appreciate Impact of Rule as Written.Encourages Commission to Abandon Rulemaking PLA-2726, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Rulemaking to Enhance Levels of Engineering & Accident Mgt Expertise on Shift1986-09-25025 September 1986 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Rulemaking to Enhance Levels of Engineering & Accident Mgt Expertise on Shift ML20138A9521985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027D4441982-11-0202 November 1982 Response to Aslab 821026 Order Requesting Info on RCS Leak Rate Detection.Util Preparing Tech Spec to Limit Increase in Unidentified RCS Leakage to 2 Gpm within 4-h Period ML20027D4471982-11-0101 November 1982 Affidavit of Wj Rhoades Correcting Response to Hearing Question on Leak Rates.Leak Rate Sys Capable of Detecting 1 Gpm Per Hour.Tech Specs Will Require Shutdown for Unidentified Leakage of 5 Gpm.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069D8321982-09-0909 September 1982 Original Signature Page to Sh Cantone Affidavit.Svc List Encl ML20027B2291982-09-0909 September 1982 Stipulation of Withdrawal of Commonwealth of PA 820428 Exceptions Re Supply of TLD ML20065A9541982-09-0909 September 1982 Affidavit of Sh Cantone Re Dosimetry for Emergency Workers at Plant.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20027B2231982-09-0909 September 1982 Motion to Withdraw Commonwealth of PA 820428 Exceptions to Initial Decision,Contingent Upon Approval of Util & Commonwealth of PA 820909 Stipulation ML20027B2351982-09-0808 September 1982 Affidavit of AL Belser & Rj Hippert Responding to Questions in Aslab 820820 Order & Supporting Stipulation Withdrawing Exceptions.When Stipulated Number of Dosimeters Available, Emergency Workers Will Be Protected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20027B2331982-09-0808 September 1982 Affidavit of Ma Reilly Responding to Question in Aslab 820820 Order & Supporting 820909 Stipulation. TLD Necessary to Document Exposure of Officials Helping Contaminated Evacuees ML20063A4041982-08-18018 August 1982 Petition for Reconsideration of Commission 820809 Order Rendering ASLB Initial Decision Effective.Exceptions to Decision Require Resolution.Commission Order Premature. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062J6391982-08-13013 August 1982 Order Directing Parties to Identify Person Presenting Arguments at 820908 Hearing in Bethesda,Md.Response Requested No Later than 820831 ML20058J6651982-08-0909 August 1982 Order Rendering ASLB 820412 Decision Authorizing OL Issuance Effective.Full Power OL Not Yet Authorized ML20054L5081982-07-0606 July 1982 Brief Opposing Commonwealth of PA 820428 & Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers 820421 Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision.Pa Fails to Prove Dosimetry Issue Timely Raised. Citizens Failed to Comply W/Procedure.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054L2841982-07-0202 July 1982 Brief Opposing Commonwealth of PA 820428 Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Issuance.Commonwealth Fails to Justify License Condition Imposition Re Availability of Dosimetry.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054J5611982-06-25025 June 1982 Brief Opposing Citizens Against Nuclear Danger 820421 Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision.Exceptions Fail to Comply W/Commission Regulations & Raise Issues Not Presented Before Aslb.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20053D2191982-05-28028 May 1982 Brief Supporting Commonwealth of PA Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20053D0801982-05-28028 May 1982 Brief in Support of Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of Ols.Shortage in Supply of Dosimeters for Emergency Workers Clear & Uncontroverted. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052B7461982-04-28028 April 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052A2751982-04-21021 April 1982 Exceptions to ASLB Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054C6551982-04-15015 April 1982 Response Opposing Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers 820402 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Requirements for Reopening Record Not Met.No Showing That Allegations Raise Significant Safety Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050D4191982-04-0202 April 1982 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Based on Important New Info & Recommendations to NRC Commissioners & Congress.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C2701982-03-26026 March 1982 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Emergency Evacuation Plan ML20042C2781982-03-26026 March 1982 Motion for Order That Applicants Conduct Complete Retest of Emergency Plan W/All 20 Communities Participating.Testimony on Contentions 6 & 20 Should Be Reviewed to Identify Perjury by Fema,Applicants & State of Pa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069B0301981-12-22022 December 1981 Reply to Parties' Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20039B0791981-12-16016 December 1981 Proposed Transcript Corrections.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M2141981-12-0909 December 1981 Proposed Transcript Corrections ML20039A1951981-12-0909 December 1981 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ML20038C0131981-12-0303 December 1981 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20038A8891981-11-17017 November 1981 Motion to Take Official Notice of Existence & Content of Listed Documents Relevant to Contention 21.Validity of Info in Documents Could Be Subj to Dispute.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence 1999-07-12
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20027B2231982-09-0909 September 1982 Motion to Withdraw Commonwealth of PA 820428 Exceptions to Initial Decision,Contingent Upon Approval of Util & Commonwealth of PA 820909 Stipulation ML20063A4041982-08-18018 August 1982 Petition for Reconsideration of Commission 820809 Order Rendering ASLB Initial Decision Effective.Exceptions to Decision Require Resolution.Commission Order Premature. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052B7461982-04-28028 April 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 820412 Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C2781982-03-26026 March 1982 Motion for Order That Applicants Conduct Complete Retest of Emergency Plan W/All 20 Communities Participating.Testimony on Contentions 6 & 20 Should Be Reviewed to Identify Perjury by Fema,Applicants & State of Pa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20038A8891981-11-17017 November 1981 Motion to Take Official Notice of Existence & Content of Listed Documents Relevant to Contention 21.Validity of Info in Documents Could Be Subj to Dispute.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20011A2321981-10-0101 October 1981 Support for Contention 4 & Position on New Contentions. Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 Should Be Denied Since Util Cancellation of Unit 2 May Be Best Solution.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20011A2121981-09-30030 September 1981 Appeal of ASLB 810924 Memorandum & Order,Section 5,granting Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Portion of Contention 2 Re Magnitude of Doses from Releases of Radioactive Matl.No Basis to Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20010J6231981-09-30030 September 1981 Response Supporting NRC 810911 Motion for Summary Disposition of Portion of Contention 1 Re Radiological Health Effects of Isotopes Other than Rn-222 & Tc-99.Health Effects Adequately Addressed in Fes ML20010H7931981-09-22022 September 1981 Answer Opposing Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers 810912 Notice of Appearance for Purposes of Presenting Direct Testimony & Motions Before Aslb.Consolidation of Contentions Unnecessary.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20140B1981981-09-10010 September 1981 Response Supporting Applicants 810828 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Fuel Cycle Doses.Also Moves for Summary Disposition of Portion of Contention 1 Re Radiological Health Effects of All Isotopes ML20140B1931981-09-10010 September 1981 Answer Opposing Susquehanna Environ Advocates 810822 Motion for Allowance of New Contention.Motion Is Untimely & Balancing Factors Do Not Weigh in Intervenors Favor. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140B1651981-09-10010 September 1981 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 14 Re cost-benefit Balance.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & NRC Entitled to Favorable Decision as Matter of Law ML20010G2271981-09-0808 September 1981 Comments on Susquehanna Environ Advocates 810831 Filing on Expert Witnesses.Filing Inadequate & Fails to Meet ASLB 810814 Mandate.Reserves Right to Seek Relief If Intervenor Files Testimony.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20010G2981981-09-0808 September 1981 Response to ASLB 810814 Memorandum & Order,Filing Qualifications,Identities,Subj Matter & Substance of Testimony of Expert Witnesses for Contentions 2,6,9,11,14,20 & 21.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20140B4381981-09-0202 September 1981 Answer to Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers 810827 Filing. Applicants Oppose Several Motions & Arguments.Allegations Re Chlorine Portion of Contention 2 Are Moot.No Valid Reason for Addl Prehearing Conference.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010F4541981-08-31031 August 1981 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7C Re BWR Core Spray Nozzle Cracking.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20010F5411981-08-31031 August 1981 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Re Contention 7B.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010F4741981-08-31031 August 1981 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7B Re Cracking of Stainless Steel Piping in BWR Coolant Water Environ Due to Stress Corrosion.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20010F4431981-08-31031 August 1981 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Re Contention 7C.Related Correspondence ML20005B7991981-08-28028 August 1981 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Portion of Contention 1 Re Magnitude of Radioactive Doses That Will Be Imparted on Public by Release of All Isotopes During Fuel Cycle.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20005B8241981-08-28028 August 1981 Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue,Supporting Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Fuel Cycle Doses.Related Correspondence ML20010F4001981-08-27027 August 1981 Response in Opposition to ASLB 810814 Directives & Motions on Testimony & Public Hearings Conference.Date That Correspondence Is Required to Be Mailed Is Incorrect & Only Two Aspects of Contention 2 Are Listed for Consideration ML20010C9811981-08-19019 August 1981 Statement of Issues for Commonwealth of PA Participation,Per ASLB 810727 Memorandum & Order.Particular Interest Shown in Contentions 5,7(D),11 & 21.Related Correspondence ML20010C8631981-08-18018 August 1981 Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 17.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact to Be Heard.Applicants Are Entitled to Favorable Decision as Matter of Law ML20010C8671981-08-18018 August 1981 Memorandum Supporting Applicants' 810818 Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 17.Michaelson Affidavit Sufficiently Addresses Issues & Constitutes Adequate Basis for Granting Motion ML20010C9491981-08-18018 August 1981 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Geniune Issue to Be Heard Re Contention 17.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010C0771981-08-13013 August 1981 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 2 Which Questions Magnitude of Facility Low Level Radioactive Releases.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010C1471981-08-13013 August 1981 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Re Contention 2 on Source Term ML20010C9781981-08-10010 August 1981 Memorandum of Law in Response to Applicants' 810727 Ltr.All Parties in Proceeding Have Right to Present Rebuttal Evidence.Related Correspondence ML20010B3971981-08-0707 August 1981 Memorandum in Support on 810807 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Quantity of Rn-222 to Be Released During Fuel Cycle ML20010B4091981-08-0707 August 1981 Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 Concerning Rn-222 ML20010B4041981-08-0707 August 1981 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Rn-222. Issue Should Not Be Relitigated Under Accepted Principles of Collateral Estoppel & Stare Decisis.No Genuine Issue to Be Heard ML20009H2281981-08-0404 August 1981 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7(a).Related Correspondence ML20009H2301981-08-0404 August 1981 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7(a).No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20009G9951981-08-0303 August 1981 Memorandum Supporting Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3.Assertions Refuted in Jm Vallance Affidavit & Some Assumptions Are Contrary to Aslab Rulings ML20009H0251981-07-30030 July 1981 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicants Are Entitled to Decision as Matter of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009F8371981-07-28028 July 1981 Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Re Contention 11 on Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel ML20009F8431981-07-28028 July 1981 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 11 Re Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists.Motion Supported by C Herrington & DW James Affidavits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G8391981-04-0909 April 1981 Answer Opposing Citizens Against Nuclear Danger 810327 Motion Requesting Hearing on Applicants' 801223 SNM License Application.Motion Does Not Comply W/Commission Regulations. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19290G6301980-11-24024 November 1980 Request to Deny Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 2 Re Chlorine Due to Studies Demonstrating Relationship Between Cancer Rates & Chlorinated Compounds in Drinking Water.W/Certificate of Svc ML18030A4731980-11-0606 November 1980 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 2 Re Health Effects of Discharged Chlorine.Responses Due within Three Wks from Present Filing ML18030A4131980-11-0606 November 1980 Statement of Matl Facts Re Absence of Issue to Be Heard,In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 2 on Health Effects of Discharged Chlorine ML18030A0181980-11-0606 November 1980 Pleading in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 2 Re Health Effects of Discharged Chlorine.Issue Narrowed by Intervenor/Sponsor Via Response to NRC Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML18030A1621980-10-29029 October 1980 Response in Opposition to Environ Coalition on Nuclear Power Petition for Commission Review of ALAB-613.Intervenor Petition Sets Forth Nothing Which Warrants Different Conclusion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18030A1591980-10-27027 October 1980 Statement of Matl Facts Re Absence of Genuine Issue to Be Heard,In Support of Summary Disposition of Contention 16 on Cooling Tower Discharge.Sys Designed to Evaporate Water Daily from Towers W/O Radioactive Releases ML18026A3101980-10-10010 October 1980 Response in Opposition to Applicant Request Re Interrogatories on Safety Issues.Environ Phase Must Take Priority Over safety-related Discovery Per ASLB 791030 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18030A1401980-08-22022 August 1980 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists to Be Heard in Support of Request for Summary Disposition of Ozone Portion of Contention 17.Max Ground Level Ozone Concentrations Near Lines Will Be Far Below Allowable Limit ML18030A1431980-08-22022 August 1980 Request for Free Hearing Transcripts Per 800725 Fr Notice Re Procedural Assistance Change in Adjudicatory Licensing Proceedings.Prior Denials Damaged Ability to Properly Litigate Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18030A4411980-08-22022 August 1980 Request for Summary Disposition of Portion of Contention 17 Dealing W/Ozone.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard.Responses Due in Three Wks ML18026A3001980-06-13013 June 1980 Response to Aslab 800521 Memorandum & Order ALAB-593, Requesting Environ Coalition on Nuclear Power to Inform Aslab of Extent of Relief Sought.Intervenor 800530 Request Must Be Dismissed as Moot.Certification of Svc Encl 1982-09-09
[Table view] |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
s 9/10/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC C00 PERATIVE, Il4C. ) 50-388 (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) ) m
& 'b HRC STAFF RESPONSE SUPPORTING APPLICANTS' MOTION U g A FOR PARTIAL SUtNARY DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 1 <[
(FUEL CYCLE DOSES) AND NRC STAFF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
- > Y.db ' - ~.__
~
DISPOSITION OF A P0RTION OF CONTENTION 1 i
% ((W ,Nsf 5'/. /pp#
v A
- 1. INTRODUCTION 'O / AC Qqd*
Un August 28, 1981, the Applicants filed a " Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 1 (Fuel Cycle Doses)" (Motion). In that Motion the Applicants ask the Licensing Board for summary disposition in their favor on that portion of Contention 1 which relates to the doses to the public which will result from the release of radionuclides during the fuel cycle required for the Susquehanna plant.
The Applicants assert that the portion of Contention 1 which concerns the magnitude of doses to the public presents no genuine issue of material fact and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor as a matter of law.
The NRC Staff supports the Applicants' hotion. The Staff concludes that the Applicants' Motion and its supporting documentation clearly demonstrates the absence of any genuine issue of material fact with regard to the magnitude of doses to the public resulting from the release 8109140095 81091o g4 / s PDR ADOCK 05000387 G PDR O\
t 1
of radionuclides during the fuel cycle for the facility and that the Board should dismiss that portion of Contention 1 as a matter of law.
In addition, the Staff asserts that the portion of Contention 1 which relates to the radiological health effects of all isotopes (other than radon-222 and technetium-99) which will be released during the fuel cycle required for the Susquehanna plant presents no genuine issue of material fact. Contention 1 consists of two parts. The first section which deals with the health effects of radon-222 and technetium-99 will be dealt with elsewhere. l The second section alleges:
The radiological health effects of all isotopes other than Radon-222 and Technetium-99 which will be released during the fuel cycle required for the Susquehanna plant have been misrepresented and underestimated. In particular, the health effects of each long-lived isotope which will be released from the fuel cycle for Susquehanna should be reassessed. The appropriately determined effects must be factored into the cost-benefit balance for the operation of the plant.
The Staff believes that it is entitled to summary disposition in its favor on this portion of Contention 1 as a matter of law.
Section II of this pleading will discuss generally the law applicable to motions for summary disposition.Section III will set forth the Staff's reasons for supporting the Applicants' Hotion and for its own position that the portion of Contention 1 relating to the radio-logical health effects of isotopes (other than radon-222 and technetium-99) raises no genuine issue of material fact. Attached to y The Applicant on August 7, 1981 filed a motion for summary disposition on the quantity and health effects of releases of radon-222 during the fuel cycle required for the Susquehanna plant. The Staff filed a response supporting the Applicants' motion on August 27, 1981.
this filing is the Affidavit of Reginald L. Gotchy and a Statement of Material lacts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to bc Heard.
II. gel 4ERAL POIt4TS OF LAW The Commission's Rules of Practice provide for summary disposit!on of certain is; ses on the pleadings where the filings in the proceeding show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 10 CFR 52.749.
Because the Commission's summary disposition rule is analogou3 to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (sunmary judgment),
Federal court decisions interpreting Rule 56 may be relied on for an understanding of the operation of the sumary disposition rule.2l In -
Adickes v. Kress & Co., 389 U.S. 144, 157 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the party seeking summary judgment has "the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact."U To meet this burden, the movant must eliminate any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issu. of material fact.O To further inis goal, the sumary disposition rule provides that all material facts, set out ir the state-ment which must accompany summary clisposition motions, will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party. 10 CFR 9 2.749(a).
y Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley fluclear Plant, Units 1 ano 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
3f See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry fluclear Power PTant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-433, 6 f4RC 741, 752-54 (1977).
y Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 368 U.S. 464, 468 (1962);
321 U.S. 620, 627 (1944).
Sartor v. Arkansas llatural Gas Cor
Any other party may serve an answer supporting or opposing the motion for ui.uary disposition. 10 CFR 9 2.749(a). Attached to a motion opposing summary disposition must be a separate, short, and concise statement of the material fdcts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be heard. 10 CFR 9 2.749(a). A material fast is one which may affect the outcome of the litigation.N The opposing party need not show that it would prevail on the issues but only that there are genuine material issues to be tried.O A party opposing the motion, however, may not rely on mere allegations but instead must demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise that a genuine issue exists as to a material fact.U Furthermore, the record and affidavits supporting and opposing the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.E Finally, the proponent of a motion for summary disposition must meet its burden of establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law even if the opponent of such a motion fails to submit evidence controverting the conclusions reached in y Mutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Mgt. Co. , 533 F. 2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977). .
y American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting -
Paramount Theaters, Inc., 388 F. 2d 272, 280 (2d Cir.1976).
y 10 CFR 9 2.749(b). Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-548,11 NRC 451, 453 (1980).
See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 8]
ana 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974).
documents submitted in support of the motion.E III. STAFF ARGUMENT Contention 1, in pertinent part, alleges that the radiolcgical health effects of all isotopes (other than radon-222 and technetium-99) which will be released during the fuel cycle required for the Susquehanna facility have been misrepresented and underestimated. The Staff believes that tnis portion of Contention 1 raises no genuine issue of material fact.
The Staff has reviewed the Applicants' Motion and the Affidavit of Dr. Morton J. Goldman which accompanies and supports the Motion.
(Affidavit of Reginald L. Gotchy (Gotchy Affidavit) at Paragraph 2).
The dose estimates per referenced reactor year (RRY) which Dr. Goldman cites are comparable to those developed by the Staff and provided in the FES (HUREG-0564, pp. 4-31 to 4-32). (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 3).
Tne Staff agrees with the Applicants that the estimates are re,ionably conservative and therefore fully supports the Applicants' Motion concerning the issue of potential population dose commitments for all radioisotopes (other than radon-222 and technetium-99) which may be released during the fuel cycle required for operation of the Susquehanna facility. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 3).
9f Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 7 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977). Courts have, however, granted motions for summary judgment even though certain facts have been disputed when the disputed facts dere found not material to the resolution of the legal issues presented. Riedel
- v. Atlas Van Lines, 272 F. 2d 901, 905 (8th Cir.1959), cert denied, 362 U.S. 942 (1960); Newark Horning Ledger Co. v. U.S., 416 F.
Supp. Lines, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 166, 175 (H.D. Ill. 1972).
The potential public health effects from fuel cycle releases of radionuclides other than radon-222 and technetium-99 have been studied by the Staff and reported in both the S-3 Hearing and GESMO Hearing records. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4). The potential public health effects of fuel cycle releases of radionuclides have been found to be in sequential and incapable of significantly affecting the cost-benefit balance for the operation of the station. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4).
Tne potential public health effects estimates are sucinarized in the FES (NUREG-0564) as 0.08 to 0.12 cancer deaths per RRY over periods of time ranging from 100 to 1,000 years. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4).
The most recent and authoritative guidance on the potential risks from exposure to low-level radiation comes from the 1980 BEIR III Report.
(Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4). The recommendations of that report, however, do not significantly change the Staff risk estimates presented in the earlier S-3 Hearing and GESMO Hearing. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4).
Other recent independent estimates of population doses and impacts from the nuclear fuel cycle demonstrate that generating one RRY of electrical power from the nuclear fuel cycle for all radionuclides (excluding radon-222) may result in less than one human health effect (cancer and genetic effects) per RRY over time spans up to 500 years into the future. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 5). All of these independent reviews support the Staff assessments contained in the FES.
(Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 5).
l _
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff believes that it has clearly demonstrated that the potential doses to the public as a result of releases of radionuclides (excluding radon-222 and technetium-99) during the fuel cycle required for the facility have been adequately assessed.
Further, the Staff asserts that the potential health effects of those doses have been studied and have been found to be inconsequential.
Thus, the Staff believes that summary disposition in favor of Applicants of that portion of Contention 1 which relates to doses and summary disposition in favor of the Staff of that portion of Contention 1 relating to potential health effects of radionuclides (excluding radon-22c and techneiium-99) released during the fuel cycle should be granted as a matter of law in accordance with 10 CFR 9 2.749.
Respectfully submitted, (LCb'lkT [h NLy Lucinda Lcw Swartz U Counsel fo; NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of September,1981.
-- , ,w t ,, ,,~ ~ -- - - - - - ----
]
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS N0 GEHUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD
- 1. The potential health effects frora fuel cycle releases of radionuclides other than radon-222 and technetium-99 have been studied by the Staff and reported in both the S-3 Hearing and GESM0 Hearing records (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4).
- 2. The potential public health effects of full cycle releases of radionuclides have been found to be inconsequential and incapable of significantly affecting the cost-benefit balance for the operation of the station (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4).
- 3. The potential public health effects estimates are sumarized in the FES (HUREG-0564) as 0.08 to 0.12 cancer deaths per RRY cver periods of time ranging from 100 to 1,000 years. (Gotchy Affidavit at Paragraph 4).
- 4. Recent independent estimate; of population doses and impacts from the nuclear fuel cycle demonstrate that generating one RRY of electrical power from the nuclear fuel cycle for all radionuclides (excluding radon-222) may result in less than one human health effect (cancer and genetic effects) per RRY over a timespan up to 500 years into the future. (Gotchy Affidvit at Paragraph 5).