|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARDCL-99-123, Comment on Prs 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Guidelines. Util Areas of Concern Includes ESF Actuations, Significantly Degraded Components & Historical Limitations1999-09-20020 September 1999 Comment on Prs 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Guidelines. Util Areas of Concern Includes ESF Actuations, Significantly Degraded Components & Historical Limitations ML20205N4081999-04-14014 April 1999 Comments Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,19 & 20 Re Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain.Requests Information on How Much Radiation Being Released Now at Diablo & Hanford NPPs ML20205N4601999-03-21021 March 1999 Introduces K Schumann as Representative of Nuclear Waste Committee (Nuwic) of San Lius Obispo County.Informs That Nuwic & Nuclear Waste Management Committee Concerned with Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods from Dcnpp ML20195E8841998-11-24024 November 1998 Petition for Mod to OLs to Require Plant Owner to Have Independent Contractor Evaluate Plant Safety Culture ML20236T3011998-07-24024 July 1998 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Avtivities (Effective Immediately).Lh Brooks Prohibited for 5 Yrs from Date of Order from Engaging in NRC Licensed Activities ML20248C2261998-05-22022 May 1998 Comment Opposing Revised Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Protection & Safety Sys ML20129J4191996-10-18018 October 1996 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Restructuring of Pacific Gas & Electric Company by Establishment of Holding Company DCL-95-206, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-61 Re Improving Fire Protection Regulations1995-10-0606 October 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-61 Re Improving Fire Protection Regulations ML20091P8721995-08-23023 August 1995 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-61 Re Nuclear Energy Institute Proposed Amends on Fire Safety for All NPPs DCL-95-001, Comment on Proposed Changes to Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Rule 10CFR50.Endorses NEI Comments1995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment on Proposed Changes to Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Rule 10CFR50.Endorses NEI Comments ML20077M7521994-12-30030 December 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operation for Nuclear Power Reactors DCL-94-270, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rulemaking for NPP License Renewal.Endorses Comments & Changes Proposed by NEI 941208 Submittal1994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rulemaking for NPP License Renewal.Endorses Comments & Changes Proposed by NEI 941208 Submittal ML20149H0851994-11-0404 November 1994 Initial Decision (Construction Period Recovery/Recapture).* Renewed Motion to Reopen Record 940808,denied.Served on 941104.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072L2651994-08-23023 August 1994 PG&E Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record.* Util Opposes San Luis Obispo for Peace Motion Based on Affidavit Stating No Evidence Found in Motion Re Flaw in Program.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072F0291994-08-12012 August 1994 Erratum to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Intervenors Corrects Error in Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072B2651994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re FFD Requirements Concerning Random Drug Testing ML20072A5821994-08-0808 August 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re PG&E Application for Amend to Extend Term of OL for Plant.* Motion to Reopen Record to Introduce Insp Rept Identifying Alleged Problems W/Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20071L2061994-07-26026 July 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Changing Current Drug Testing Policies to Exclude All Personnel in nonsafety-related Positions ML20072B8481994-07-26026 July 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Changes to FFD Requirements Concerning Random Drug Testing ML20071L1901994-07-20020 July 1994 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Relaxing Rule on Drug Testing of Employees Working at NPP DCL-94-134, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Each Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program1994-06-27027 June 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Each Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program DCL-94-135, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR50.54(p) Concerning Frequency W/Which Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Security Programs1994-06-27027 June 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR50.54(p) Concerning Frequency W/Which Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Security Programs ML20064D1791994-03-0707 March 1994 Pacific Gas and Electric Co Reply in Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Motion to Reopen Record Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064D1961994-03-0404 March 1994 Affidavit of Mj Angus Re Motion to Reopen Record ML20063L5721994-02-25025 February 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Re Util Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.* Advises That Record of Proceeding Should Be Reopened to Consider Insp 93-36 Re Util Surveillance of Asw Sys DCL-94-021, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation1994-01-26026 January 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation ML20059D2431994-01-0707 January 1994 Package of Intervenor Exhibits Consisting of Related Correspondence Not Admitted Into Evidence.Related Correspondence ML20062N0001993-12-30030 December 1993 PG&E Reply Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Mothers for Peace Proposed Findings & Conclusions Do Not Provide Any Supportable Rationale to Change Findings & Conclusions Previously Proposed by Pg&E.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P3931993-12-22022 December 1993 NRC Staff Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision.* Certificate of Svc ML20058K7491993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Board Has Extended Filing Time for Util Until 931230.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931206.Granted for Board on 931203 ML20058K8771993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Requests That Board Extend Date for Staff to File Findings Until 931222. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M5291993-11-19019 November 1993 Applicant Exhibits A-21,A-22,A-24,A-25,A-26,A-29 & A-F1, Consisting of Related Correspondence Not Admitted Into Evidence.Related Correspondence ML20058E0741993-11-19019 November 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Licensee Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.* W/ Certificate of Svc ML20059E8931993-10-28028 October 1993 Memorandum & Order (Motion for Extension of Time).* San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 931018 Request for two-wk Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Granted.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931029 ML20059E8531993-10-27027 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Board Memorandum & Order Re Extension of Time.* Staff Believes That San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Has Shown No Good Cause for Requesting Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059E8631993-10-25025 October 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion for Extension of Time.* Util Does Not Agree W/Board Assessment That Mothers for Peace Request Appears to Be Reasonable But Will Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B2191993-10-19019 October 1993 Memorandum & Order (Responses to Motion for Extension of Time).* Board Believes Intervenor Request for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact Appears Reasonable. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B1071993-10-18018 October 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposing Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Requests Extension of Two Wks or Until 931119 to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057D0531993-09-23023 September 1993 Notice of Appearance.* Notice Given That Undersigned Attorney Enters Appearance in Listed Matter & Listed Info Provided.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057B0401993-09-14014 September 1993 NRC Staff Reply to PG&E Response to Staff Motion to Amend Protective Order.* NRC Staff Moves Board to Adopt Language Requested in 930817 Motion as Stated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056G4891993-08-30030 August 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion to Amend Protective Order.* Staff Asks That Protective Order Be Clarified by Adding New Footnote to Paragraph 3 of Order. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C7361993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-88,consisting of NRC Insp of Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 IR 05000275/19920161993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-137,consisting of Insp Rept Re Dockets 50-275/92-16 & 50-323/92-16,dtd 920707 IR 05000275/19930111993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-26,consisting of Re Insp Repts 50-275/93-11 & 50-323/93-11 ML20059M1381993-08-24024 August 1993 Staff Exhibit S-1,consisting of Re 920519 Enforcement Conference IR 05000275/19920131993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-140,consisting of 920416,mgt Meeting Repts 50-275/92-13 & 50-323/92-13 ML20059D0841993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-139,consisting of Insp Rept Re Dockets 50-275 & 50-323,dtd 920417 IR 05000275/19920261993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-118,consisting of Notice of Violation & Insp Rept Re Docket 50-275/92-26 & 50-323/93-26,dtd 921113 ML20059M5041993-08-24024 August 1993 Staff Exhibit S-2,consisting of Re Notice of Violation ML20059M8621993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-35,consisting of Rept, Self- Evaluation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Dtd Jul 1993 1999-09-20
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20195E8841998-11-24024 November 1998 Petition for Mod to OLs to Require Plant Owner to Have Independent Contractor Evaluate Plant Safety Culture ML20072L2651994-08-23023 August 1994 PG&E Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record.* Util Opposes San Luis Obispo for Peace Motion Based on Affidavit Stating No Evidence Found in Motion Re Flaw in Program.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072F0291994-08-12012 August 1994 Erratum to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Intervenors Corrects Error in Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072A5821994-08-0808 August 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re PG&E Application for Amend to Extend Term of OL for Plant.* Motion to Reopen Record to Introduce Insp Rept Identifying Alleged Problems W/Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064D1791994-03-0707 March 1994 Pacific Gas and Electric Co Reply in Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Motion to Reopen Record Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20063L5721994-02-25025 February 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Re Util Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.* Advises That Record of Proceeding Should Be Reopened to Consider Insp 93-36 Re Util Surveillance of Asw Sys ML20058K8771993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Requests That Board Extend Date for Staff to File Findings Until 931222. W/Certificate of Svc ML20058K7491993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Board Has Extended Filing Time for Util Until 931230.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931206.Granted for Board on 931203 ML20059E8531993-10-27027 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Board Memorandum & Order Re Extension of Time.* Staff Believes That San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Has Shown No Good Cause for Requesting Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059E8631993-10-25025 October 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion for Extension of Time.* Util Does Not Agree W/Board Assessment That Mothers for Peace Request Appears to Be Reasonable But Will Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1071993-10-18018 October 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposing Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Requests Extension of Two Wks or Until 931119 to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057B0401993-09-14014 September 1993 NRC Staff Reply to PG&E Response to Staff Motion to Amend Protective Order.* NRC Staff Moves Board to Adopt Language Requested in 930817 Motion as Stated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056G4891993-08-30030 August 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion to Amend Protective Order.* Staff Asks That Protective Order Be Clarified by Adding New Footnote to Paragraph 3 of Order. W/Certificate of Svc ML20056E8951993-08-17017 August 1993 Motion to Amend Protective Order (Governing non-disclosure of INPO Rept).* NRC Moves That Board Add Footnote to Paragraph 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20056E8021993-08-12012 August 1993 NRC Staff Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Leave to Conduct Discovery on NRC Inquiry Into Allegations Re Pressure to Falsify Fire Watch Logs Motion for Postponement of Hearing....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20056E7371993-08-12012 August 1993 PG&E Response to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Further Discovery & for Delay in Hearing Thermo-Lag Contention.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20046D1091993-08-11011 August 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery on NRC Inquiry Into Allegations Re Pressure to Falsify Fire Watch Logs,Motion for Postponement of Hearing on thermo-lag Contention.* ML20046B9181993-07-22022 July 1993 PG&E Request to Defer Briefing Schedule on Ref Ruling Re INPO Documents.* Board Erred as Matter of Law in Ordering Release of INPO Evaluation & Ref Ruling Should Be Reversed by Commission.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20046B9531993-07-22022 July 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Motion to Require cross-exam Plans.* Requests That Board Require cross-examination Plans from Parties That Intend to Conduct cross-examination. W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C8721993-07-16016 July 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to 930701 Motion to Compel.* Concludes That Motion to Compel Moot & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20045G9691993-07-0202 July 1993 PG&E Response to Licensing Board Questions Re INPO Documents.* ML20045G9561993-07-0101 July 1993 Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Compel PG&E to Respond to Third Set of Supplemental Interrogatories & Requests for Document Production,Filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20045G9431993-07-0101 July 1993 Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Slomfp) Response to Prehearing Conference Order Re INPO Documents.* Slomfp Cannot Provide Info by Affidavit Due to Lack of Info Re Content of INPO Documents.W/Certificate of Svc ML20045D7341993-06-21021 June 1993 Pge Motion for Schedule Change.* Util Moves That Licensing Board Adopt Listed Revised Schedule.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128P1821993-02-12012 February 1993 PG&E Preliminary Response to Discovery Request Filed Per 10CFR2.741(a)(2) & Motion for Protective Order.* Util Agrees to & Will Support Reasonable Discovery Into Issues within Scope of Contentions Admitted by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D8661993-02-0303 February 1993 Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Request to PG&E for Entry Upon Facility,Per 10CFR2.741(a)(2) for Purposes of Insp,Measuring & Photographing.* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20127D5461992-09-0808 September 1992 NRC Staff Response to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Ltr Request for Hearing.* Presiding Officer Should Defer Ruling on Standing Pending Receipt of Any Amend Petitioners May File.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20006D7721990-02-0808 February 1990 PG&E Response in Opposition to Application for Stay.* Stay of Random Drug Testing Under NRC Fitness for Duty Rule Should Be Denied on Basis of Untimeliness & Challenge Having No Merit.W/Proof of Svc ML20247Q1531989-07-24024 July 1989 Sierra Club Request to Withdraw Contentions.* Requests That All Outstanding Contentions in Current Proceedings Be Withdrawn W/Understanding That Further Discussion Will Occur Between Sierra Club & NRC Re Nepa.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154E4281988-05-11011 May 1988 Motion to Terminate Proceeding.* Requests Termination of Pending Proceedings on Grounds of Mootness.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148L9531988-03-31031 March 1988 Response to NRC Staff to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.* Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148L9301988-03-29029 March 1988 Answer of PG&E to Petition to Intervene in License Amend Proceedings of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.* San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Failed to Satisfy Technical Standing Requirements of 10CFR2.714.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237E5071987-12-15015 December 1987 Motion for Leave to File Response of NRC Staff to Appeal of Sierra Club from ASLB Memorandum & Order of 870902 & Initial Decision of 870911,1 Day Late.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20237E6891987-12-15015 December 1987 Motion for Leave to File Response of NRC Staff to Appeal of Sierra Club from Licensing Board Memorandum & Order of 870902 & Initial Decision of 870911,1 Day Late.* Motion Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237E8191987-12-11011 December 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Appeal of Sierra Club from Licensing Board Memorandum & Order of 870902 & Initial Decision of 870911.* Staff Opposes Sierra Club Appeal & Urges That Board Decisions Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236E0031987-10-21021 October 1987 PG&E Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club Request for Stay.* Util Lists Four Arguments Opposing Request for Stay,Issued by ASLB on 870911,re Util Amends to Increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C1831987-10-20020 October 1987 Intervenor Request for Stay.* Sierra Club Requests NRC to Stay Effectiveness of 870902 Order & 870911 Initial Decision of Licensing Board Until Sierra Club Has Had Opportunity to Participate in Proceeding Re Reracking.W/Proof of Svc ML20235T4071987-10-0505 October 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Intervenor Sierra Club Request for Stay.* Sierra Club Failed to Satisfy Requirements of 10CFR2.788 & Request for Stay Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235R9611987-10-0202 October 1987 PG&E Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club Request for Stay.* Sierra Club 870924 Request for Stay of 870911 ASLB Initial Decision (LBP-87-25) Authorizing Spent Fuel Pool Reracking Amends Should Be Denied ML20235F2951987-09-24024 September 1987 Intevenors Request for Stay.* Seeks Stay of ASLB 870911 Initial Decision Authorizing NRR to Issue OL Amends, Permitting Reracking of Spent Fuel Storage Pools.W/Proof of Svc ML20234D3021987-09-16016 September 1987 Sierra Club Brief in Support of Appeal of ASLB 870902 Order.* Contention Contains Requisite Specificity to Be Admitted to Proceeding.Criteria for late-filed Contention Met.Proof of Svc Encl ML20238A5771987-08-14014 August 1987 Supplemental Brief Re Applicability of ALAB-869 to Inclusion of Zircalloy Cladding Fire Contention.* Sierra Club Believes Focus for Admission of Contentions Must Be Requirements of Atomic Energy Act & Nepa.Proof of Svc Encl ML20238A6521987-08-14014 August 1987 PG&E Supplemental Answer in Opposition to Intervenor Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention.* Sierra Club Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention & Direct Preparation of EIS Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20238A6001987-08-13013 August 1987 Response of NRC Staff to ASLB Order of 870731 (Directing Parties to File Comments on Applicability of Aslab Decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,ALAB-869,to Proposed Contentions at Issue in Matter).* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236B8541987-07-21021 July 1987 Motion on Notification of Meetings,Establishment of Seismic Review Committee & Govt Exam of Design Calculations.* Motion Undated ML20235J1541987-07-10010 July 1987 PG&E Answer in Opposition to Intervenor Motion to Admit late-filed Contention.* Board Requested to Direct NRC Staff to Prepare EIS Re Issues Discussed in Generic Issue 82. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235J1791987-07-10010 July 1987 NRC Staff Answer to Sierra Club Motion to Admit Contention Re Generic Issue 82 & to Direct Preparation of an Eis.* Denial Urged.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20216J7911987-06-29029 June 1987 Motion to Include Issues Raised in Generic Issue 82 as Contentions in Proceeding & to Direct Preparation of Eis.* Board Requested to Direct Preparation of EIS Re Possibility & Impact of Zircalloy Cladding Fires ML20214A9391987-05-13013 May 1987 NRC Staff Comments on Proposed Order Re Electronic Storage & Retrieval.* ASLB Proposed Order Should Not Be Adopted.If ASLB Agrees,Staff & Parties Could Supply ASLB w/MS-DOS Disks of Prefiled Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207P7081987-01-15015 January 1987 NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club/Mothers for Peace Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Devoid of Any Factual Support Which Warrants Granting of Summary Disposition Re Environ Claims.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-24
[Table view] |
Text
.
.9 kN -
Oget I 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ P559 2 r.rne -: trerv .,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAll80ARD's:,; :,. q ,g 3 is h 4 -
)
5 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA
) 50-323 OLA 6 -PACIFIC' GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )
) (Spent Fuel Pool Reracking) 7 (Diablo Canyon Power Plant )
Units 1 and 2) )
8 ) October 2, 1987 9
10 l
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S 11 ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO SIERRA CLUB'S REOUEST FOR STAY 12 13 l
I. INTRODUCTION 14 15 On September 24, 1987, the Sierra Club filed a Request For Stay of an 16 initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB" or 17 " Licensing Board") issued on September 11, 1987, which authorized the Director 18 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue amendments to the operating licenses 19 for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. These amendments would permit an increase in i
20 the spent fuel pool storage capacity from 270 to 1324 fuel assemblies through 21 installation of high density racks.
22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PGandE") opposes the request and 1
respectfully urges that it be denied in all respects.
23 l 24 /// !
25 ///
///
)
26 I 1
8710080248 871002 l '
l PDR C
ADOCK 05000275 PDR 0) l l
\
1-
Q 1 II. BACKGROU@
2 3 On October 30, 1985, PGandE requested license amendments for Diablo 4 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ("Diablo Canyon"), which would 5 authorize ~PGandE to increase the spent fuel storage capacity at Diablo 6 Canyon. On January 13, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
7 published in the Federal Register a notice regarding the proposed 8 amendments.II In response to this notice, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for 9 Peace ("MFP"), the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter (" Sierra Club"), and 10 Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety (" CODES") filed II petitions for leave to intervene on February 7,10, and 12,1986, respectively.
12 After a prehearing conference, the Sierra Club, HFP, and CODES were 13 admitted as parties. Various contentions to be heard by the ASLB were also 14 admitted. (LBP-86-21, 23 NRC 849 (1986)).
15 Heanwhile, the NRC published its final Determination of No 16 Significant Hazards Consideration and granted PGandE the license amendments.
17 The NRC determination and the amendments allowed PGandE to install the new 18 high density racks prior to a hearing on the Interveners' contentions.2 19 Several weeks later, after PGandE had commenced installing the high 20 density racks in Unit 1, the HFP and the Sierra Club sought from the 21 Commission a stay of the effectiveness of the authorization of reracking.
22 Shortly thereafter, on June 18, 1986, they filed a petition for review and 23 1/ " Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 24 DPR-80 and DPR-82 for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Respectively, and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 25 Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" (51 Fed. Reg. 1451).
, 26 2/ 51 Federal Register 20725 (June 6, 1986)
I L _ __ _ ___ ._ _ _
I l
)
l I
motion for stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On 2 July 2, 1986, an interim order was issued by the Ninth Circuit that prohibited 3 PGandE from using the high density racks until the Court reached a final !
4 decision. On July 22, 1986, the Commission issued an order that restricted 5 PGandE to using only 270 storage spaces when the high density racks are 6
installed, even if the Court should reverse its interim order, until hearings 7 were completed.3#
8 On September 11, 1986, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that 9
reversed the Commission's grant of authority to install the new high density 10 racks and prohibited their use until the Commission held hearings on the II amendment requests.SI 12 After several delays, a hearing was held on June 16-18, 1987, in 13 Avila Beach, California, on the remaining contentions of the Sierra Club.5/
14 At the hearing, the Sierra Club sought to raise a new contention regarding a 15 draft report by Brookhaven National Laboratories, dated January 1987, entitled 16 "Beyond Design-Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools (Generic Issue 82)" ("BNL 17 Report").0# The Licensing Board took the matter under advisement; at the 18 close of hearing on June 18, the Board directed that the Sierra Club file 19 ///
20 3/ CLI-86-12, 24 NRC 1 (1986)
S/ San Luis Obisoo Mothers for Peace v. EfLC, 799 F.2d 1268, (9th Cir.1986).
5/ On December 10, 1986, and January 13, 1987, respectively, CODES and 23 Mothers for Peace withdrew from the proceeding.
24 6/ The BNL Report was provided to the parties and the ASLB in BN 87-05 issued in late March 1987. The final report, " Severe Accidents in Spent 25 fuel Pools in Support of Generic Safety Issue 82," NUREG/CR-4982 (July 1987) was sent to all parties as Board Notification 87-13 on 26 August 28, 1987.
L______ .--
li I
a motion in writing within 10 days, and that PGandE and the NRC Staff file 2 responses within 10 days of receipt of the motion.
3 On June 29, 1987, the Sierra Club filed with the Licensing Board a 4
motion to include issues raised in Generic Issue 82 as a contention in the 5 reracking proceeding and to direct the Staff to prepare an Environmental 6 Impact Statement ("EIS"). PGandE and the NRC Staff filed timely responses in 7 opposition to the motion.
8 On September 2, 1987, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and 9 Order (" Order") denying the Sierra Club's Motion to ad. nit a late-filed 10 contention.2# Then, on September 11, 1981, the ASLB issued its Initial II Decision (" Decision") authorizing the reracking amendments, thereby completing 12 the proceedings in this matter.0 13
.On September 16, 1987, Sierra Club filed with the Atomic Safety and 14 Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") an appeal of the ASLB's 15 September 2, 1987 Order. In an order issued September 18, 1987, the Appeal 16 Board dismissed the appeal as an impermissible interlocutory appeal.EI 17 On September 24, 1987, the Sierra Club filed an appeal of the ASLB's 18 Order and Initial Decision of September 2, 1987, and September 11, 1987, 19 respectively.10/ Accompanying this appeal was a Request for Stay of the 20 September 11. 1987, Initial Decision.
{
21 !
l 22 2/ LBP-87-24, 26 NRC _ (1987).
23 8/ LBP-87-25, 26 NRC _ (1987).
l 24 S/ ALAB-873, 26 NRC _ (1987), l 25 10/ Sierra Club has appealed the September 2, 1987, decision in its entirety j and its Contention 1(B)(7) dealing with PGandE's failure to consider 26 {
adequately alternatives to the reracking. Sierra Club Notice of Appeal l
)
l 6
)
I III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 2
3 The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 2.788 incorporate the i 4 traditional stay criteria as set forth in Virainia Petroleum Jobbers t 5 Association v. fEC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir.1958). They are:
6 7 (j).whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; 8
(2) whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a ,
9 stay is granted; !
10 (3) whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and
)
(4) where the public interest lies.
13 In seeking a stay of a licensing action, a movant has the burden of 14 persuasion. Alabama Power Comoany (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 15 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 797 (1981); Cuomo v. RC 772 F.2d 972, 973, 978 16 (D.C. Cir.1985). Perhaps the most significant factor under this test is i 17 "whether the party requesting a stay has shown that it will be irreparably )
- \
18 injured unless a stay is granted." Metropolitan Edison Comoany (Three Mile )
19 Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801, 804 (1984). If no j 20 irreparable injury is shown, a movant must make a compelling showing on the 21 remaining three factors. Florida Power and Liaht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power {
22 Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-415, 5 NRC 1435, 1437 (1977). In this connection, 23 speculative assertions of injury are insufficient, for a moving party "is 24 \
I 25 at 2-3. Sierra Club Request for Stay, p. 2 fn. 4. Sierra Club did not '
appeal the denial of its remaining contentions which challenged the 26 seismic design adequacy of the proposed high density racks. 4
i
. 1
\
i
-l required to demonstrate the injury is both certain and great." Cleveland )
2 Electric 111uminatina Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
3 ALAB-820, 22 NRC 743, 747 (1985).' !
4 Nith regard to likelihood of success on the merits, there must b a 5 greater showing than a pdtsibility of legal error by the Licensing Board 0 6 below, Philadelphia Electric Comoany (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 7 Units 2 and 3), ALAB-221, 8 AEC 95, 98 (1974), or mere establishment of 8
possible grounds for appeal. AlabBma Power Co. (Joseph M. farley Nuclear 9 Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795,,797 (1981).
10 The remaining factors of harm to other parties and the public 11 interest are generally of lesser importance than the foregnin;. Their overall '
12 importancewillvaryaccordingtothemovant'bIshowing an irreparable harm anc 13 likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Public Service ComDany of New 14 Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-865, 26 NRC _ (May 8, 1987).
15 As the following discussion amply demonstrates, the Sierra Club has 16 not met the above criteria in its motion.
17 A. Sierra Club Has Not Shown A Likelihood Of Prevalino On The Herits 18 Sierra Club has' raised several points on appeal. Briefly stated, it 19 contends that the NRC has violated provisicns of the National Environmental 20 PolicyAct,42U[S.C.4321 11 n g. ("NEPA"), by its failure to prepare an
<' r Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") and its inadequate consideration of 21 22 alternatives to the proposed reracking. In particular, it cites Board a 23 Notification 87-M and the BNL Report as examples of that failure. Request 24 at 6. The Sierra Club also argues that the failure of the ASLB to admit the 25 late-filed contention regarding the applicability of the BNL Report to Diablo 26 Canyon violates both the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239 ftt ag. (nuclear i I J
a
~
r f
)
h U l >
plants will operate without endangering the public health and safety) and the i
2 Nuclear Hasth Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 10101, 10152(1) (prohibits NRC from 1 j y '3h authorizing expansion of on-site spent fuel facilities unless such action is 3i 4 consistent with the protection of the public health and safety).
't e
- l 5
Prior to its attempt,to file a lato contention relating to the BNL f a4 !
6 Report, Sierra Club had not sought 4dmission of d contention that the NRC had 7
i violateditsdutygnderNEPAtoprepareanEk5. Rather, Sieira Club 8
Contentions ,(b)(76addressedonlytheodestiot,oftheadequacyofPGandE's f
9 review of al rnatives to the reracking.U# Thus, Sierra Club's EIS 10 argument applies mly to the late-filed contention dealing with the BNL II Aeport.
In reviewing the evidence presented on Contention I(B)(7), the Board i- 2 /
2
) specifically found that PGandE had in fact considered the two alternatives I3 (1entlorHdbytheSierraClub. Moreover, the Board noted that the only l
l 14 l specif tc alternatives thnti the NRC requires to be considered are off-site I
15 storage or reprocessing, and shutting tae reactor down. The Board went on to l 16 conclude tMit the alternatives considered by PGandE in the Reracking Report 17 compliedfblywitpNRCrules. Decision at 10-12.
18 l 19 U/ Contention 1(B)(7) stated:
It is the contention of the Sierra Club that 20 [ applicant's] Reports fail to include consideration of certain relevant conditions, phenomena, and alternatives 21 necessary for independent verification of claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed 22 reracking with the public health and safety, and the environment, and with federal,1aw.
23 In particular, the Reports fail to censider: ,
(7) alternative on cito storage facilities including:
74 ,
(i) construction of new or additional storage ~
facilities and/or; 2S (ii) acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear t
fuel storage equipment, including spent nuclear 26 fuel storage casks;.... l l
Q S 4
'y J > ,
't v'
., . 'l ,f
..j 1
Hith regard to Sierra Clut.'s safety contention premised on the BNLa
.v 2 Report, the Board in its SeptFicer 2 Order found that the proposed contention 3
3 $ckedanexuswiththeBNLR[yrtand,hence,lackedabasisforadmissionto 4 the proceeding.121 The Board-Hent through a detailed analysis of the BNL 5 Report ani ruled that it faile$ to support the contention proffered by the L t- ) ,
6 Sierra Clut Indeed, the Board pointed'out that the Sierra Club had failed to 7 suggest a "... mechanism or event that could cause a loss of coolant accident 8 at the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools...." Order at 10.
9 As for Sierra Club's additional argument that the BNL Report required 10 the Staff to prepare an EIS, the Board noted that a "beyond design-basis ,
'Il accident," such as postulated in the BNL Report, does not require the Staff to 12 issue an EIS, citing the recent decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro.
13 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-869, 26 NRC _ (July 22, 1987).
14 In Vermont lan!Lef, id., the Appeal Board ruled as a matter of law that a
- 15 severe, beyond design-basis accident was not cognizable under NEPA, citing 53n v
16 Lujf_Qbisoo Mothers for Peace v. HRC 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), aff'd gn p 17, p band.789,5.2d26(1986), cert. denied, _ U.S. _,107 5. Ct. 330 (1986).
4 iB furthermore, the Appeal Board in Vermont Yankee held that "the NRC Interim 19 i Policyon'NucigePowerPlantAccidentConsiderationsUndertheNational 20 Environmental Policy Act of 1969,' 45 fad. Bag. 40,101 (1980) ... (did] nat 21 apply to spent fuel pool proceedings by its terms." Id. at 14.
22 til 23 _.
24 12/ The basis and specificity requirements for a contention are to put the parties on notice of what issues they will have to defend and to assure 25 that issues which are raised are appropriate for litigation in a particular proceeding. Phildelohia Electric Cru (Limerick Generating 26 Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-845, 24 NRC 220, 230 (1986).
i k
} c',
i
__.-_.-___.______._____._____m
w a
r I B. Sierra Club Has Not Shown That It Hill Be Irreparably Harmed If The
'2 Stav Is Denied 3 The Sierra Club alleges that it, its members, and the public will be l j 4 endangered by the proposed reracking, citing the BNL Report as the basis-for 5 postulating a catastrophic accident. However, it is clear that a mere 6 .referencefto the BNL Report with all its caveats cannot be transformed into a 7 claim of irreparable injury postulated upon. the occurrence of a severe 8 accident. As noted above, the ASLB found that the Sierra Club failed to 9 describe any scenario which would lead to a catastrophic accident. Thus, the 10 . Sierra Club has simply not demonstrated that the claimed injury is "both II
.certain and great," and the issuance of a stay is not warranted. Wisconsin 12 Gas._Co. v. EEAC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir.1985), Cleveland Electric 13 111uminatina Co., (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), lynn at 747.
14 15 C. The Grantina Of A Stav Hill Harm Other Parties 16 Given the facts as set forth in the attached affidavit of James D.
17 Shiffer,'it is clear that PGandE will suffer significant harm if a stay is 18 aranted. Not only will reracking have to be further delayed, with the 19 consequent increase in cost of the project, but also the actual rtracking work 20 will become far more difficult to accomplish due to the larger number of spent 21 fuel elements in the spent fuel pool. For example, with twice as much spent 22 . fuel in the pool, it will not be possibl2 to provide as much physical 23 separation between the spent fuel and the underwater work activities. This 24 increases the level of radiation to which divers will be exposed. Also, the 25 movement of twice the amount of spent fuel in and out of the racks results in 26 increased radiation exposure during the rack replacement process. ,
-)
I D. The Public Interest lies In Denial Of A Stav 2 The recent hearings have demonstrated that the proposed high density 3 reracking at Diablo Canyon poses no safety or environmental harm to anyone.
4 Sierra Club has had an opportunity to present its case on the issues but has 5 not borne its burden of persuasion in that hearing or in its stay motion. As 6
,,oted in the affidavit of James D. Shiffer, a stay would increase radiation 7
exposure to workers and provide no discernible benefit.to the public.
8 9
CONCLUSION 10 Il For the foregoing reasons, PGandE respectfully requests that the 12 Request for Stay be denied in its entirety.
13 14 Respectfully submitted, l 15 HOWARD V. GOLUB l
16 RICHARD F. LOCKE 17 Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 IB (415) 781-4211 19 BRUCE NORTON c/o Richard F. Locke 20 P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 21 (415) 972-6616 22 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2 By N Bruce Norton 25 DATED: October 2, 1987 26
!