ML033520360
| ML033520360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2003 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| +adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-336-OLA-2, ASLBP 03-808-02-OLA, RAS 7150 | |
| Download: ML033520360 (5) | |
Text
1 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
CLI-02-1, 55 NRC 1, 2 (2002)(quoting Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-93-24, 38 NRC 187, 188 (1993)).
RAS 7150 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED 12/18/03 COMMISSIONERS:
SERVED 12/18/03 Nils J. Diaz, Chairman Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Jeffrey S. Merrifield
)
In the Matter of
)
)
DOMINION NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-336-OLA-2 CONNECTICUT, INC.
)
)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station)
)
)
___________________________________)
CLI-03-18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Commission has before it a petition filed by the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone (CCAM) seeking reconsideration of the Commissions decision in CLI-03-14, 58 NRC
___ (Oct. 23, 2003)(slip op.). Both Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) and the NRC staff oppose the petition. We deny the petition.
As the Commission reiterated last year in another Millstone proceeding (in which CCAM also was a petitioner), [p]etitions for reconsideration should not be used merely to re-argue matters that the Commission already [has] considered but rejected.1 Reconsideration petitions must establish an error in a Commission decision, based upon an elaboration or refinement of an argument already made, an overlooked controlling decision or principle of law, or a factual
2 2 Millstone, CLI-02-1, 55 NRC at 2.
3 LBP-03-12, 58 NRC 75 (2003).
4 Motion for Reconsideration (Nov. 3, 2003) at 3.
5 LBP-03-12, 58 NRC at 92-93.
6 Id. at 93.
7 CLI-03-14, slip op. at 10.
clarification.2 CCAMs petition merely repeats arguments already considered and rejected by both the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in LBP-03-123 and the Commission in CLI-03-14.
In LBP-03-12, the Licensing Board ruled CCAMs contention in this proceeding inadmissible because CCAM never provided the necessary alleged facts or expert opinion to support claims that the license amendment at issue will cause a significant increase in effluents and an adverse impact on public health. CCAMs reconsideration petition suggests that no such alleged facts or expert opinion is necessary because the Licensing Board recognized as self-evident CCAMs claims of peril.4 On the contrary, the Board found no factual or legal basis for CCAMs contention, and rejected the contention accordingly.5 CCAM inappropriately persists in suggesting that a Board finding of standing to intervene equates to an admissible contention. But as the Board itself explained, the requirements for an admissible contention are... considerably more stringent.6 As we noted in CLI-03-14, [w]hile a petitioner may have a sufficient interest in a proceeding for standing, he or she may have no genuine material dispute to adjudicate, or no specific factual or legal support to bring an issue to hearing.7 Finally, we note that throughout its petition, CCAM mischaracterizes the license amendment, suggesting that it will eliminate the existing requirement that [DNC] maintain [the]
capability to close the door to containment during a fuel handling accident, and that
3 8 Motion for Reconsideration at 2-3.
9 CLI-03-14, slip op. at 12; see also id. at 7.
containment penetrations will no longer need to be operable.8 But as we already stressed in CLI-03-14, the license amendment does not relieve DNC of the need to remain fully capable of closing containment penetrations.9 In sum, CCAM has not pointed to any factual or legal error in CLI-03-14. We deny CCAMs petition for reconsideration.
For the Commission
/RA/
Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of December 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DOMINION NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-336-OLA-2 CONNECTICUT, INC.
)
)
)
(Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-03-18) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution with copies by electronic mail as indicated.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Ann M. Young, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: amy@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rfc1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Thomas S. Elleman ASLBP 704 Davidson Street Raleigh, NC 27609-5543 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.edu Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Laura C. Zaccari, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: aph@nrc.gov; lcz@nrc.gov Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06876 E-mail: nancyburtonesq@aol.com
2 Docket No. 50-336-OLA-2 COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-03-18)
Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.
Senior Nuclear Counsel Millstone Power Station Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 E-mail: lillian_cuoco@dom.com David A. Repka, Esq.
Brooke D. Poole, Esq.
Winston & Strawn LLP 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 E-mail: drepka@winston.com; bpoole@winston.com
[Original signed by Adria T. Byrdsong]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of December 2003