|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20237C6981998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/Necnp Reply to Naesco Response to Proposed Contentions.* Board Should Admit Sapl/Necnp Contentions 1-4 & North Atlantic Energy Svcs Corp Arguments to Contrary. W/Certificate of Svc ML20237C6791998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Staff Answer to Contentions.* Petitioners Believe Board Can & Should Give Cases Consideration W/O Filing of Addl,But Not Substantively Different Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237A0501998-08-10010 August 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Response to Proposed Contentions.* Petitioners Failed to Propose Admissible Contention.Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Both Petitioners Should Be Denied ML20236X9281998-08-10010 August 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Contentions.* for Reasons Stated,All of Contentions Proposed Should Be Rejected & Proceeding Should Be Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2581991-02-14014 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General & Necnp to ASLB Order of 910124.* Intervenors Believe ASLB Should Reopen Record, Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues. W/Certificate of Svc ML19332D7241989-11-21021 November 1989 Intervenors Motion for Clarification Or,In Alternative,For Reconsideration.* Clarification or Reconsideration of Scheduling Requirements Set by Commission 891121 Order Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332D5191989-11-15015 November 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record Based Upon Withdrawal of Commonwealth of Ma Emergency Broadcast Sys Network & Wcgy.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Results Unlikely to Change ML19325E0171989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML19325E0011989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Response to Intervenors Motion to Amend Intervenors Motions of 890929 & 1013 to Admit Contentions on 890927 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise.* Issue Re Admittance Committed to Board Discretion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3511989-10-13013 October 1989 Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Advises That Applicant Contentions Filed on 890929 to Admit Addl Bases Re Scope of Onsite Exercsise Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248J0601989-09-28028 September 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Requests Hearing & to Engage in Discovery for Hearing on Contention.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247Q6761989-09-22022 September 1989 Intervenors Second Informational Suppl to Low Power Contentions Filed on 890721 & 0828.* Incorporates Encl Plant Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,Rev 2 Into Low Power Testing Contentions.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20246N1001989-09-0101 September 1989 Intervenors Reply to Responses of Applicant & Staff Re Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Contention Raises New Issues & Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E0321989-07-21021 July 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or in Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Requests Contentions Re Deficiencies in Training,Mgt Control,Supervision, Communication & Procedure Compliance Be Admitted ML20246P2041989-07-0505 July 1989 Joint Intervenor (Ji) Contentions on Spmc & June 1988 Graded Exercise.* ML20248F4691989-04-0303 April 1989 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Trial Brief on Contention Ji 56 & Sapl Contentions EX-2,4,6,7,8,12,13 & 14.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9761988-11-23023 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to 881114 Board Order Requesting Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 for Seabrook Proposed General Exercise Contentions.* Contentions & Bases Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M9431988-11-22022 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Seabrook Offsite Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9031988-11-22022 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20205R7201988-11-0202 November 1988 Town of Hampton Contention on Applicant Plan to Fund Decommissioning Costs of Seabrook Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5661988-11-0202 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07.* Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205R5441988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Financial Qualifications to Operate Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R4971988-11-0202 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Applicant Decommissioning Plan,Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation & Motion to Reopen Record.* Supporting Info & Svc List Encl ML20205R4821988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* ML20205E0011988-10-24024 October 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0271988-10-21021 October 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) & Town of Hampton (Toh) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Contentions Toh/Necnp EX-2 & Toh/Necnp EX-3.* Svc List Encl ML20205D8051988-10-21021 October 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Responses of Staff & Applicant to Intervenor Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206C1951988-10-18018 October 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20204G9731988-10-13013 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Proposed General Exercise Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation & Proferred Contentions Should Be Denied Admission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154S4571988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on June 1988 Seabrook Exercise.* Intervenor Contentions Should Be Disposed Of.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154P3461988-09-21021 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Town of Hampton Contentions Re 1988 Exercise of Offsite Plans & Preparedness for Plant Emergency Planning Zone.* Svc List Encl ML20154K8741988-09-21021 September 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions Submitted in Response to June 1988 Plant Initial full- Participation Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154K9331988-09-21021 September 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions on 880628-29 Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154N9061988-09-20020 September 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20154D7431988-09-12012 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-899.* Petition Should Be Granted on Basis That Integrity of RCS Significantly Paramount to Safe Operation of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6461988-07-0707 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Applicant Untimely Amends to Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151A6301988-07-0606 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* City of Haverhill late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196G7031988-06-27027 June 1988 Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3761988-06-22022 June 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on Spmc.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3991988-06-22022 June 1988 Reply of Massachussetts Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff and Applicant to Contentions 7 Through 83 Filed by Massachussetts Atty General.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A5261988-06-22022 June 1988 Town of Amesbury Reply to NRC Staff & Applicant Responses to Town of Amesbury Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachussetts Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A8701988-06-20020 June 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to First Six Contentions Filed by Commonwealth of Ma Atty General.* ML20151N6271988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Reply to Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on Seabrook Plan for State of Ma Communities ML20151A8361988-06-17017 June 1988 Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N6461988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for State of Ma Communities.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-20
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20237C6981998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/Necnp Reply to Naesco Response to Proposed Contentions.* Board Should Admit Sapl/Necnp Contentions 1-4 & North Atlantic Energy Svcs Corp Arguments to Contrary. W/Certificate of Svc ML20237C6791998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Staff Answer to Contentions.* Petitioners Believe Board Can & Should Give Cases Consideration W/O Filing of Addl,But Not Substantively Different Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237A0501998-08-10010 August 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Response to Proposed Contentions.* Petitioners Failed to Propose Admissible Contention.Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Both Petitioners Should Be Denied ML20236X9281998-08-10010 August 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Contentions.* for Reasons Stated,All of Contentions Proposed Should Be Rejected & Proceeding Should Be Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2581991-02-14014 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General & Necnp to ASLB Order of 910124.* Intervenors Believe ASLB Should Reopen Record, Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues. W/Certificate of Svc ML19332D7241989-11-21021 November 1989 Intervenors Motion for Clarification Or,In Alternative,For Reconsideration.* Clarification or Reconsideration of Scheduling Requirements Set by Commission 891121 Order Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332D5191989-11-15015 November 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record Based Upon Withdrawal of Commonwealth of Ma Emergency Broadcast Sys Network & Wcgy.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Results Unlikely to Change ML19325E0171989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML19325E0011989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Response to Intervenors Motion to Amend Intervenors Motions of 890929 & 1013 to Admit Contentions on 890927 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise.* Issue Re Admittance Committed to Board Discretion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3511989-10-13013 October 1989 Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Advises That Applicant Contentions Filed on 890929 to Admit Addl Bases Re Scope of Onsite Exercsise Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248J0601989-09-28028 September 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Requests Hearing & to Engage in Discovery for Hearing on Contention.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247Q6761989-09-22022 September 1989 Intervenors Second Informational Suppl to Low Power Contentions Filed on 890721 & 0828.* Incorporates Encl Plant Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,Rev 2 Into Low Power Testing Contentions.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20246N1001989-09-0101 September 1989 Intervenors Reply to Responses of Applicant & Staff Re Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Contention Raises New Issues & Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E0321989-07-21021 July 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or in Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Requests Contentions Re Deficiencies in Training,Mgt Control,Supervision, Communication & Procedure Compliance Be Admitted ML20246P2041989-07-0505 July 1989 Joint Intervenor (Ji) Contentions on Spmc & June 1988 Graded Exercise.* ML20248F4691989-04-0303 April 1989 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Trial Brief on Contention Ji 56 & Sapl Contentions EX-2,4,6,7,8,12,13 & 14.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9761988-11-23023 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to 881114 Board Order Requesting Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 for Seabrook Proposed General Exercise Contentions.* Contentions & Bases Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M9431988-11-22022 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Seabrook Offsite Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9031988-11-22022 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20205R7201988-11-0202 November 1988 Town of Hampton Contention on Applicant Plan to Fund Decommissioning Costs of Seabrook Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5661988-11-0202 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07.* Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205R5441988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Financial Qualifications to Operate Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R4971988-11-0202 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Applicant Decommissioning Plan,Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation & Motion to Reopen Record.* Supporting Info & Svc List Encl ML20205R4821988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* ML20205E0011988-10-24024 October 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0271988-10-21021 October 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) & Town of Hampton (Toh) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Contentions Toh/Necnp EX-2 & Toh/Necnp EX-3.* Svc List Encl ML20205D8051988-10-21021 October 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Responses of Staff & Applicant to Intervenor Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206C1951988-10-18018 October 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20204G9731988-10-13013 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Proposed General Exercise Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation & Proferred Contentions Should Be Denied Admission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154S4571988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on June 1988 Seabrook Exercise.* Intervenor Contentions Should Be Disposed Of.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154P3461988-09-21021 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Town of Hampton Contentions Re 1988 Exercise of Offsite Plans & Preparedness for Plant Emergency Planning Zone.* Svc List Encl ML20154K8741988-09-21021 September 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions Submitted in Response to June 1988 Plant Initial full- Participation Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154K9331988-09-21021 September 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions on 880628-29 Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154N9061988-09-20020 September 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20154D7431988-09-12012 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-899.* Petition Should Be Granted on Basis That Integrity of RCS Significantly Paramount to Safe Operation of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6461988-07-0707 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Applicant Untimely Amends to Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151A6301988-07-0606 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* City of Haverhill late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196G7031988-06-27027 June 1988 Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3761988-06-22022 June 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on Spmc.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3991988-06-22022 June 1988 Reply of Massachussetts Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff and Applicant to Contentions 7 Through 83 Filed by Massachussetts Atty General.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A5261988-06-22022 June 1988 Town of Amesbury Reply to NRC Staff & Applicant Responses to Town of Amesbury Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachussetts Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A8701988-06-20020 June 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to First Six Contentions Filed by Commonwealth of Ma Atty General.* ML20151N6271988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Reply to Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on Seabrook Plan for State of Ma Communities ML20151A8361988-06-17017 June 1988 Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N6461988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for State of Ma Communities.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-20
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217H9511999-10-21021 October 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Proceeding Re Nepco 990315 Application Seeking Commission Approval of Indirect License Transfers Consolidated,Petitioners Granted Standing & Two Issues Admitted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991021 ML20217N2561999-10-21021 October 1999 Transcript of Affirmation Session on 990121 in Rockville, Maryland Re Memorandum & Order Responding to Petitions to Intervene Filed by co-owners of Seabrook Station Unit 1 & Millstone Station Unit Three.Pp 1-3 ML20211L5141999-09-0202 September 1999 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4006, Demonstrating Compliance with Radiological Criteria for License Termination. Author Requests Info as to When Seabrook Station Will Be Shut Down ML20211J1451999-08-24024 August 1999 Comment Opposing NRC Consideration of Waiving Enforcement Action Against Plants That Operate Outside Terms of Licenses Due to Y2K Problems ML20210S5641999-08-13013 August 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Strike Unauthorized Response of Nepco.* Unauthorized Response Fails to Comply with Commission Policy.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q7531999-08-11011 August 1999 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Merger (Canal Electric Co). Canal Shall Provide Director of NRR Copy of Any Application,At Time Filed to Transfer Grants of Security Interests or Liens from Canal to Proposed Parent ML20210P6271999-08-10010 August 1999 Response of New England Power Company.* Nu Allegations Unsupported by Any Facts & No Genuine Issues of Matl Facts in Dispute.Commission Should Approve Application Without Hearing ML20210H8311999-08-0303 August 1999 Reply of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing.* Petitioners Request Hearing on Stated Issues.With Certificate of Svc ML20210J8501999-08-0303 August 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Amend.North Atlantic Energy Service Corp Authorized to Act as Agent for Joint Owners of Seabrook Unit 1 ML20211J1551999-07-30030 July 1999 Comment Opposing That NRC Allow Seabrook NPP to Operate Outside of Technical Specifications Due to Possible Y2K Problems ML20210E3011999-07-27027 July 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing. Intervenors Have Presented No Justification for Oral Hearing in This Proceeding.Commission Should Reject Intervenors Request for Oral Hearing & Approve Application ML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20195H1911999-06-15015 June 1999 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests.Requests That Commission Consent to Two Indirect Transfers of Control & Direct Transfer ML20206A1611999-04-26026 April 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Informs That Montaup,Little Bay Power Corp & Nepco Settled Differences Re Transfer of Ownership of Seabrook Unit 1.Intervention Petition Withdrawn & Proceeding Terminated.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990426 ML20205M7621999-04-15015 April 1999 Notice of Withdrawal of Intervention of New England Power Co.* New England Power Co Requests That Intervention in Proceeding Be Withdrawn & Hearing & Related Procedures Be Terminated.With Certificate of Svc CLI-99-06, Order.* Joint Request for ten-day Extension of Schedule Set Forth in CLI-99-06 in Order to Facilitate Parties Settlement Efforts Granted,With Exception of Date of Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 9904071999-04-0707 April 1999 Order.* Joint Request for ten-day Extension of Schedule Set Forth in CLI-99-06 in Order to Facilitate Parties Settlement Efforts Granted,With Exception of Date of Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990407 ML20205G0921999-04-0505 April 1999 Joint Motion of All Active Participants for 10 Day Extension to Permit Continuation of Settlement Discussion.* Participants Request That Procedural Schedule Be Extended by 10 Days.With Certificate of Svc ML20205G3091999-03-31031 March 1999 Petition That Individuals Responsible for Discrimination Against Contract Electrician at Plant as Noted in OI Rept 1-98-005 Be Banned by NRC from Participation in Licensed Activities for at Least 5 Yrs ML20204E6401999-03-24024 March 1999 Protective Order.* Issues Protective Order to Govern Use of All Proprietary Data Contained in License Transfer Application or in Participants Written Submission & Oral Testimony.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990324 ML20204G7671999-03-23023 March 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50.54(a) Re Direct Final Rule,Changes to QA Programs ML20207K1941999-03-12012 March 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Participation in Proceeding.* Naesco Wished to Remain on Svc List for All Filings.Option to Submit post-hearing Amicus Curiae Brief Will Be Retained by Naesco.With Certificate of Svc ML20207H4921999-02-12012 February 1999 Comment on Draft Contingency Plan for Year 2000 Issue in Nuclear Industry.Util Agrees to Approach Proposed by NEI ML20203F9471999-02-0909 February 1999 License Transfer Application Requesting NRC Consent to Indirect Transfer of Control of Interest in Operating License NPF-86 ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20199H0451999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests That Ui Petition to Intervene & for Hearing Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20199D2461999-01-19019 January 1999 Supplemental Affidavit of Js Robinson.* Affidavit of Js Robinson Providing Info Re Financial Results of Baycorp Holding Ltd & Baycorp Subsidiary,Great Bay Power Corp. with Certificate of Svc ML20199D2311999-01-19019 January 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Answers of Montaup Electric Co & Little Bay Power Corp.* Nep Requests That Nep Be Afforded Opportunity to File Appropriate Rule Challenge with Commission Pursuant to 10CFR2.1329 ML20206R1041999-01-13013 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of New England Power Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc ML20206Q8451999-01-12012 January 1999 Written Comments of Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co.* Requests That Commission Consider Potential Financial Risk to Other Joint Owners Associated with License Transfer.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990114 ML20199A4741999-01-12012 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Nepco 990104 Motion Should Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20198P7551998-12-30030 December 1998 Affidavit of J Robinson.* Affidavit of J Robinson Describing Events to Date in New England Re Premature Retirement of Npps,Current Plans to Construct New Generation in Region & Impact on Seabrook Unit 1 Operation.With Certificate of Svc ML20195K4061998-11-24024 November 1998 Memorandum & Order.* North Atlantic Energy Services Corp Granted Motion to Withdraw Proposed Amends & Dismiss Related Adjudicatory Proceedings as Moot.Board Decision LBP-98-23 Vacated.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981124 ML20155J1071998-11-0909 November 1998 NRC Staff Answer to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Staff Does Not Object to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20155D0041998-10-30030 October 1998 Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensee Requests Leave to Reply to Petitioner 981026 Response to Licensee 981015 Motion to Terminate Proceedings.Reply Necessary to Assure That Commission Is Fully Aware of Licensee Position ML20155D0121998-10-30030 October 1998 Reply to Petitioner Response to Motion to Terminate Proceedings.* Licensee Views Segmentation Issue as Moot & Requests Termination of Subj Proceedings.With Certificate of Svc ML20155B1641998-10-26026 October 1998 Response to Motion by Naesco to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* If Commission Undertakes to Promptly Proceed on Issue on Generic Basis,Sapl & Necnp Will Have No Objection to Naesco Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20154K8751998-10-15015 October 1998 Motion to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* NRC Does Not Intend to Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML17265A8071998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment on Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial Npps.Util Endorses Comments Being Provided by NEI on Behalf of Nuclear Industry ML20154C8171998-10-0606 October 1998 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Notice Given That W Reckley Appointed as Commission Adjudicatory Employee to Advise Commission on Issues Related to Review of LBP-98-23.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981006 CLI-98-18, Order.* Grants Joint Motion Filed by Naesco,Sapl & Necnp for Two Week Deferral of Briefing Schedule Set by Commission in CLI-98-18.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 9810061998-10-0505 October 1998 Order.* Grants Joint Motion Filed by Naesco,Sapl & Necnp for Two Week Deferral of Briefing Schedule Set by Commission in CLI-98-18.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981006 ML20153H4471998-10-0101 October 1998 Joint Motion of Schedule Deferral.* Naesco,Sapl & Necnp Jointly Request Temporary Deferral of Briefing Schedule as Established by Commission Order of 980917 (CLI-98-18). with Certificate of Svc ML20154F9891998-09-29029 September 1998 License Transfer Application Requesting Consent for Transfer of Montaup Electric Co Interest in Operating License NPF-86 for Seabrook Station,Unit 1,to Little Bay Power Corp ML20154D7381998-09-21021 September 1998 Affidavit of FW Getman Requesting Exhibit 1 to License Transfer Application Be Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790 ML20153C7791998-09-18018 September 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Util Endorses NRC Staff Focus on Operability & Funtionality of Equipment & NEI Comments ML20151Z5611998-09-18018 September 1998 Order.* Pursuant to Commission Order CLI-98-18 Re Seabrook Unit 1 Proceeding,Schedule Described in Board 980904 Memorandum & Order Hereby Revoked Pending Further Action. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 980918 ML20151Y0331998-09-17017 September 1998 Order.* All Parties,Including Util,May File Brief No Later than 981007.Brief Shall Not Exceed 30 Pages.Commission May Schedule Oral Argument to Discuss Issues,After Receiving Responses.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 980917 ML20153E8771998-09-16016 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Recommends That NRC Reverse Decision to Revise Emergency Planning Regulation as Listed 1999-09-02
[Table view] |
Text
- z -
.o .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' - -
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos. 50-443 HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) )
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO "NECNP's REPLY TO THE RESPONSES BY APPLICANT AND THE NRC STAFF TO NECNP's CONTENTIONS" -
AND TO "NECNP's SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS" -
The Applicants hereby respond to "NECNP's Reply to the Responses by the Applicant and the NRC Staff to NECNP's Contentions" ("NECNP Reply") filed by NECNP on June 17, 1982. The Applicants also address "NECNP's Supplemental Contentions," which NECNP has filed on the same date, albeit unaccompanied by any motion for leave to do so.
l 8207020224 820628 gDRADOCK05000 "'gg k
General Statement Regarding Regulatory Guides NECNP acknowledges in its Introduction, as it must, that NRC Regulatory Guides do not have the status of regulations. Having been neither approved by the Commission, nor promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, nor given the force of law, the Regulatory Guides are not legal requirements which an applicant for an operating License must meet, and the Regulatory Guides do not form the measure against which a proposed power plant is to be tested.
By its concession NECNP also acknowledges, at least implicitly, the defect in many of its originally-filed contentions. NECNP then proceeds immediately to violate its own precept, however, by setting up the NRC Regulatory Guides as a legal standard the alleged .
failure of the Seabrook application to comply with which amounts to a basis, by itself and in the absence of some other showing, for a denial of the operating ,
~
License application. Authority for this proposition is said to lie in the introduction to the Regulatory Guides themselves; the Introduction to the Regulatory Guides can, however, give the Regulatory Guides no greater status than they have under the regulations, i.e., for regulatory purposes, none. Gulf States I
L ,
Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 772 (1977).
It is settled law that the application for an Operating License is to be measured against the Atomic Energy Act and the regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it is settled law that if an application meets the statute and the regulations then the Operating License must be approved. Atomic Energy Act $ lO3(b), 42 U.S.C. 5 2133(b); Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (1973). A contention the only basis for which is the alleged failure to meet a Regulatory Guide is hollow and wholly lacking in basis. Moreover, a contention framed in terms of the alleged non-compliance with a Regulatory .
Guide "backdoors" a regulatory standard to be applied to the application which, under prevailing law, the application is not required to meet.
NECNP's argument fails as completely as a matter of logic as it fails as a matter of law. If A or B or C equals X, then' the absence of A, which is wholly neutral on the presence or absence of B or C, is equally uninformative about the existence of X. Yet it is X (i.e., compliance with the regulations) that is
important, and not A or B or C (i.e., various equally acceptable means by which the regulation may be met).
NECNP's case stands or falls on its ability to convince this Board that the regulations are not met; it cannot do this by proving that a regulatory guide has not been met, and its contention, if it is limited in basis to the asserted non-compliance with a regulatory guide, is logically without basis.
For these reasons, the restated contentions of NECNP fail to cure the defects noted in the Applicants' response to NECNP's original contentions. Indeed, in many cases NECNP has not reworded the defective contentions at all.
I.A.1 Environmental Qualification NECNP is correct that "[bloth the Applicant and ,
the Staff would restrict NECNP's environmental qualification to a claim of non-compliance with GDC 4 7 as implemented by CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707 (1980)." (NECNP Reply at 2.) The reason for this is that "GDC 4 as implemented by CLI-80-21" is the only environmental qualification requirement that may be legally imposed upon this application. The fact that NECNP believes that "GDC 4 as implemented by CLI-80-21" is insufficient, either because "CLI-80-21 does not
incorporate the lessons learned at Three Mile Island" (id.), or otherwise, is quite irrelevant to this proceeding. A criticism that the regulation is inadequate must be lodged in a forum other than this licensing case. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758. If, in fact, it is "NECNP's contention that GDC 4 itself requires that the applicant not only satisfy CLI-80-21 but also show
[ additional items]" (NECNP Reply at 3) then NECNP ought to be satisfied with a contention stated in terms of GDC 4 alone. To the extent that NECNP is not satisfied with a contention so stated, its dissatisfaction proves that NECNP in fact hopes to impose upon this application a requirement not contained in the statute or the regulations, and the contantion is therefore defective. .
I.A.2 Environmental Qualification of Electric Valve Ooerators This contention fares no better than the previous contention. To the extent that it seeks to impose upon Seabrook regulatory requirements in addition to those imposed by the statute or regulations, it is inadmissible. Under NRC practice, the " reasonable assurance" requirement may not be used to freight additional technical requirements onto a plant where
{
l
specific regulations have been enacted and complied with. NECNP's contention that the application must meet the regulation (i.e., GDC 4) "and as may be further required to provide a reasonable assurance" (NECNP Reply at 3, emphasis added) is simply erroneous.
I.A.3 Environmental Qualification for Hydrogen Burns NECNP's rebuttal fails to meet the thrust of the defect pointed out in the Applicants' response to the original contention. The fact that the Commission has used a different hydrogen generation assumption for the purposes of the ECCS regulation (i.e., 10 C.F.R.
5 50.45(b)) avails NECNP nought when it attempts to impose an extra-regulation requirement of hydrogen environment qualification. The inescapable fact, as we stated in response to NECNP's original contention, is that "[t]here is no requirement in any regulation (including GDC 4) that electrical equipment inside the containment be qualified to ' withstand the effects of a hydrogen release such as occurred at Three Mile Island Unit 2'." NECNP has pointed to no such regulation, and its proposed contention therefore fails.
9 I.B.1 Environmental Qualification of Mechanical Equicment It is a legitinate contentien that an item of equipment not classified by the Applicant as "important to safety," and therefore not demonstrated to be environmentally qualified, is in fact "important to safety." NECNP appears to recognize this in the restatement of its proposed contention.
However, it is a requirement that any such' contention specify what equipment is alleged to have been improperly classified with respect to its importance to safety. NECNP's proposed rewording is sufficient to state a contention with respect to steam dump valves, turbine valves, and the steam dumping system; it wholly fails, however, to provide any .
specificity insofar as some might construe it to apply to any other equipment.
I.B.2 Duration of Environmental Qualification The Applicants do not object to the admission of this contention.
I.C. Environmental Qualification-Emergency Feedwater Pumphouse HVAC For the reasons stated in response to contention I.B.1, a contention to the effect that an item of equipment has been improperly classifded with respect f
to its importance to safety must identify the equipment alleged to have been improperly classified with some specificity. For want of any such specification, NECNP's contention is not admissible.
From its statement in its " reply," we observe that NECNP is concerned about HVAC electrical cables. The Applicants would have no objection to a contention framed as follows:
"The application fails to comply with GDC 4 because the electrical cables in the emergency feedwater pumphouse HVAC are not environmentally qualified."
NECNP cannot, however, press this contention with respect to any other item of equipment unless it is willing to give notice as to the item in question.
I.D.1 Testing of Reactor Vessel Wells NECNP's proposed reworded contention has failed to cure the defect inherent in attempting to clothe Regulatory Guide 1.150 with a legal significance that 1
it does not have. The Applicants would have no objection to a contention that reads as follows:
"The applicants have not complied with GDC 1 with respect to ultrasonic testing of reactor vessel wells during preservice and in-service examination."
I.D.2 Testing of Protection System Actuation Functions As with the prior contention, NECNP would by this contention make the alleged non-compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.22 a fact of legal significance.
Such a ruling by the Board would violate Commission precedent. E.g., Gulf State Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 772 (1977). Though NECNP acknowledges the defect in its original contention, it perpetuates the defect in its reworded contention.
The only permissible contention in this context is:
"The Applicants' proposed testing of protection systems and actuation devices fails to meet the requirements of GDC 21 and NUREG-0737, TASK II.D.1."
I.D.3 Testing of Leakage Detection System As is the case with the two prior contentions, NECNP perpetuates a failure of its original contention that it has acknowledged. The Applicants must demonstrate compliance with GDC 21, and nothing else.
The specificity requirements obligate NECNP to specify any respect in,which it contends that the leakage detection system, or the testing thereof, does not comply with GDC 21.
I.D.4 Periodic Testing of Electric Power and Protection Systems Once again, NECNP would make a Regulatory Guide the presumptive legal standard; it compounds the felony by attempting to clothe an IEEE standard with the same legal effect. NECNP is free to contend that in some specific .espect the proposed testing of electric power protection systems fails to comply with GDC 21; unless and until it does so, it has not stated an admissible contention.
I.E Reactor Coolant Pumo Flywheel Integrity NECNP has failed to cure the defect described in Applicants' response to its original contention, nor has it proposed any rewording of that contention to cure the defect. As presently framed, the contention .
is not admissible.
I.F Diesel Generator Qualification Once again, NECNP's reworded proposed contention assigns a legal significance to the asserted failure to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.9. A contention framed in these terms is not admissible.
I.G Pressure Inst'ument r Reliability The Applicants have no objection to the reworded contention.
i I.H Decay Heat Removal Capacity As NECNP correctly notes, "The Applicant [ sic] and the Staff [have objected] that there is no regulatory requirement for larger heat exchanger capacity at Seabrook." Unfortunately, NECNP has supplied no regulatory requirement in its Reply. The bare citation to NUREG-0705 avails NECNP not at all; neither is this NUREG a regulation nor does it stand for the proposition that the decay heat removal capacity at Seabrook is inadequate. Nor does the citation to ALAB-491 aid the cause, for nothing in that decision imposes upon operating license applicants additional technical requirements outside of the existing regulations.
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245, 248- -
49 & n.6 (1978) (unresolved generic safety issues should be discussed in the Staff SER and should disclose "the staff's perception of the nature and extent of the relationship between each significant unresolved safety question and the eventual operation of the reactor under scrutiny").
I.I Inadequate Provisions for Achieving Cold Shutdown NECNP has done nothing to cure the defect in its original contention, other than to restate the
-,..-,m -,
arguments it originally put forth. It is far from clear what is contended; if it ic contended that the application fails to meet the statute and applicable regulations because some piece of equipment is not environmentally qualified, the Applicants (together with everyone else) are wholly uninformed as to what piece of equipment NECNP has in mind. Moreover, it is plain from NECNP's argument that the legal standard L against which they urge the Board to measure the application is a Regulatory Guide and an Inspection &
Enforcement Bulletin; neither of these is a standard that the Operating License application may legally be measured against. The wholly contentless addition of the phrase "all of the design criteria applicable to systems, structures and components important to safety, -
including but not limited to [a list of 14 of the GDC]"
does not cure this problem. As framed, this contention is hopelessly vague and quite inadmissible.
I.J Sabotage As NECNP acknowledges, "NECNP cannot [at this time]
frame a proper' contention . . . ." Accordingly, no contention can be admitted.
l
I.K Instrumentation Since NECNP has no basis for contending that the PAM instrumentation is inadequate, its first alternative ought not to be accepted.
I.L PORV Flow Detection Since NECNP has not proposed a rewording of its contention, the contention continues to suffer from the defect noted in the Applicants' initial reponse.
I.M Fire Protection As the Applicants originally stated, they have no objection to a contention in the following terms:
"The Applicants' fire protection system does not meet the requirements of GDC 3."
The addition of the words "as implemented by the commission in CLI-80-21" would, however, make the ,
contention inadmissible.
As NECNP's quotation in its Reply itself shows, the material described in CLI-80-21 is, like a Regulatory Guide, but one means of complying with the GDC. A contention that appears to require compliance with l something that is not a regulation -- but is only one of the means by which the regulation may be complied with -- attempts to force the Applicants to meet a i
standard which is not contained in any regulation, and is therefore inadmissible.
I.N Solid Waste Disposal The Applicants do not object to the reworded proposed contention.
I.O Emergency Feedwater NECNP has done nothing to cure the defect which formed the basis of the earlier objection. ,
I.P Human Engineering NECNP's citation to Clarification Item I.D.1 of NUREG-0737 does not suffice to discharge its obligation to identify a regulation mandating the relocation of the multipoint recorder for which NECNP contends.
Accordingly, the contention should be denied admission.
I.Q Systems Interaction ,
As the Applicants pointed out in their initial response, the flat holding of the Licensing Board in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-27, 14 NRC 325, 331 (1981), is that the contention NECNP proposes is inadmissible: ,
"The Board has determined that [a systems interaction study) is not an explicit requirement of NUREG-0737. . . . The Board is not aware of any requirement in
the regulations for this kind of a comprehensive study."
NECNP's reliance upon Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No.
50-322 (March 15, 1982), at 12, ought to be unpersuasive to this Board, for the reason that the Shoreham Licensing Board seems itself to have acknowledged that there is no requirement for a systems interaction review as a condition precedent to the granting of an Operating License. See id. at 10. The Diablo Canyon and Shoreham Licensing Boards are thus squarely in conflict as to the admissibility of a
" systems interaction" contention, and this Board must choose to follow one and reject the other.
Interestingly, the two Licensing Boards are not in .
conflict as to whether or not there is any regulation requiring a systems interaction review; the Shoreham Board departs from the Diablo Canyon Board in its decision to admit a contention notwithstanding the lack of any regulatory requirement, and in doing so, we respectfully submit, it departs from established law as well.
Moreover, it seems to have been overlooked by NECNP that the Shoreham Board denied admission of a
) 1 contention supporting a system-by-system study, as NECNP now proposes here: "[T]here is not at this time i the basis for commencing, on the record of this I
^
proceeding, a system by system analysis or physical 1
inspection on the mere possibility that a defect may
}
turn up . . . . Id. at 12 (emphasis added; footnote i
omitted). All that was admitted in Shoreham (and even this, we respectfully submit, was erroneous) was a methodology review. Id. Thus there is no authority supporting the admission of a contention such as NECNP has submitted (and there are two decisions excluding such a decision).
I NECNP fails to repair its case by its non-specific reference to GDC 20, 22 and 24. While a number of i .
contentions might be framed under those GDC, they do .
- not include the contention framed by NECNP as its j proposed contention I.Q. Finally, while 10 C.F.R. 5 i
50.55a(h) does require protection systems to meet the requirements set forth in IEEE 279-1971, the latter does not require the type of " state of the art" review. 1 for which NECNP contends. Indeed, NECNP's citation to IEEE 279-1971 proves too much; scores of nuclear power plants have received Operating Licenses since 1971 without having had their applications measured against m,,_ ~ - - .,,-n m , ~--~ '
the sort of contention NECNP now proposes. Were NECNP's citation accurate, all of these licenses would be in doubt.
The inescapable fact of the matter regarding systems interaction is that NECNP really desires a change in the applicable regulations. Whether or not such a change may be forthcoming in the future is a matter of speculation; that no such change in the regulations has occurred to date is a matter of fact.
I.R Hydrogen Control The Applicants objected to this contention because NECNP had wholly failed to satisfy its burden, established in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-16, 11 NRC 674 (1980),
if it wished a waiver from the Commission's regulations .
embodied in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.44, of demonstrating a credible accident scenario resulting in hydrogen releases above the limits contemplated by that regulation. In its Reply, NECNP argues the legal proposition that a subsequent Commission decision (Duke Power Co. (Wil'liam B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 21, CLI-81-15, 14 NRC 1 (1981)) has abrogated this threshold requirement in respect of a proposed ,
h
contention that would otherwise violate 10 C.F.R. 5 50.44. NECNP's argument is erroneous.
CLI-81-15 was an "immediate effectiveness" review by the Commission of a Licensing Board decision in McGuire. The Licensing Board decision was one denying litigation of the very contention that NENCP seeks to assert, based on the Board's finding that there was no credible accident scenario leading to the hydrogen releases necessary to make the contention litigable.
See Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, NRC , CCH Nuc. Reg.
Rptr. 1 30,676 (March 30, 1982), at p. 30,283 n.4. The Commission allowed that Licensing Board decision, which is squarely contrary to NECNP's argument, to become immediately effective. .
While NECNP contends that one Licensing Board (Cleveland Electric Illuminating Corp. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-440 & -441 (Slip. Op. March 3, 1982)) has construed CLI-81-15 as overruling the " credible scenario" requirement of CLI-80-16, the Appeal Board does not so view the matter.
ALAB-669, CCH Nuc. Reg. Rptr. at p. 30,287:
" Commission regulations set standards for hydrogen control that each facility must meet before being licensed. These
standards are based on certain assumptions concerning the rate and amount of hydrogen production from a metal-water (steam) reaction during a LOCA. See 10 C.F.R. 5 44 . . . .
Neither the standards nor the assumptions upon which they are based are subject to challenge in an adjudication unless the commission specifically authorizes it.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.758. . . . The Licensing Board quite properly relied on TMI-1 Restart (i.,e., CLI-80-16). . . . The Commission thus having expressed its intent not to waive the design basis assumptions of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.44 but to consider hydrogen control measures only in the context of a ' credible LOCA,' it was incumbent upon the Licensing Board --
as it is now upon this Appeal Board -- to act in accordance with that intent.
Despite [Intervenor's) insistence that
' fairness and reasonableness' require otherwise . . . , in this adjudicatory system, no less than in any other, the directiveness [ sic} of superior tribunals must be given effect whether or not the subordinate tribunal agrees with them."
In short, NECNP's contention that CLI-81-15 has .
overruled CLI-80-16, and abrogated the requirements imposed by the latter on those who would litigate contentions framed on hydrogen releases extra 10 C.F.R.
5 50.44, is simply not the law. This being the case, and NECNP having wholly failed to comply with the requirements l' aid down in CLI-80-16, this proposed contention may not be admitted. In addition, NECNP's newly alleged " credible accident scenario" avails it nothing. All NECNP has done is given a generic
description of a LOCA plus ECCS failure. This is not a scenario; it is a series of ultimate conclusions.
I.S Loose Parts Detection System NECNP has failed to cure the defect pointed out by the Applicants' in their original response. Plainly neither 10 C.F.R. 5 20.l(c) (ALARA) nor 10 C.F.R. 5 50.36 (technical specifications) by its terms requires a loose parts detection system. This Board may take notice that a loose parts detection system is not a standard item of operating reactor equipment, but rather is a new device thought by some to be a good thing to have. At bottom, as NECNP's Reply demonstrates, its argument is grounded on Regulatory Guide 1.133, which NECNP would transmute into a new legal requirement that a plant have a loose parts -
detection system. Because the Regulatory Guide may not be used -- that is to say, misused -- in this fashion, the contention should not be admitted.
I.T Steam Generators NECNP has done nothing to cure the defect pointed out in Applicants' initial response. As its defense of this proposed contention demonstrates, NECNP lacks any basis for its assertion whatsoever. Speculation will
not suffice; because speculation is all that NECNP has, its contention may not be admitted.
I.U Turbine Missiles Insofar as NECNP contends that the Seabrook
- Operating License application fails to meet GDC 4 insofar and to the extent that GDC 4 requires protection against the effects of turbine missiles, the Applicants have no objection to such a contention. If, as appears by the language of the contention, NECNP wishes to litigate whether or not the application meets the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.115, and to contend that, if it does not, it ought to be.. denied on that ground, the contention is inadmissible. For some reason, NECNP declines, apparently, to reword its contention. As framed, the contention is inadmissible. -
I.V In-Service Insoection of Steam Generator Tubes The Applicants are at something of a loss to understand what NECNP is trying to do with this contention. Insofar as NECNP wishes to advocate the following contention, the Applicants have no objection:
"The Applicants have not demonstrated that they have met GDC 14, 15, 31 and 32 insofar and to the extent that those GDC require a program for the in-service inspection of steam generator tubes."
i
l
)
Beyond this, the proposed contention does nothing to cure the defect pointed out in the Applicants' original response.
I.W Seismic Qualification of Electrical Equipment The Applicants have no objection to so much of NECNP's reworded proposed contention as is stated in the first sentence thereof. The second sentence, as NECNP has reworded it, is not an admissible contention.
II. Quality Assurance Insofar as NECNP wishes to litigate, for the second time, the adequacy of the Seabrook QA plan, it acknowledges that it may do so only if it can avoid the preclusive effect of the prior litigation by showing either "significant supervening developments having a possible material bearing upon previously adjudicated ,
issues" or "the presence of some unusual factors having special public interest publications." Alabama Power Co. (Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 182, 7 AEC 210, 216, remanded on other grounds, 7 AEC 203 (1974). Contrary to its assertion, however, NECNP has not met that high burden, for at best it has contended that it did not litigate all of the issues that it now wished it had litigated at the time of the CP hearings. Neither the applicable statute and P
P
regulations against which the Seabrook QA plan is to be measured, nor the plan itself, has changed since the CP litigation. To the contrary, all that has changed is that NECNP is now more imaginative than it might have been if it had the chance to litigate those issues a second time. This does not meet the Farley standard.
Insofar as NECNP wishes to litigate the adequacy of the Applicants' execution of the QA plan, it has remedies that do not include the OL proceeding. Indeed it is clear now that this Board is without jurisdiction to review any aspect of ongoing construction; including QA Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-674, NRC , CCH Nuc. Reg. Rptr. 1 30,678 (May 5, 1982).
III. Emergency Planning ,
Insofar as NECNP accepts the proposed rewording proffered by the Applicants, the Applicants agree that the contention is admissible. Insofar as NECNP persists in urging as contentions its own views of what the emergency planning regulations ought to require, Applicant presses the objections raised in its initial response.
- - n . - - , ---
~.
NECNP's Supolemental Contentions IV. Blockage of Cooling Tunnels '
Prescinding entirely from the question of 'w hether s
NECNP has satisfied the requirement for justifying
~
late-filed contentions (see 10 C.F.R. 2.7h4) (NECNP s points, in fact, to.no new developments other~than its own heightened creativity), this contention fails because it is based upon the assumption that the i Atlantic Ocean is the ultimate Seabrook heat sink and the tunnels leading to the Atlantic Ocean are necessary viaducts to that ultimate heat sink. In fact, the Atlantic Ocean is not the ultimate Seabrook heat sink; the tunnels are not and need not be seismically qualified; and the contention fails entirely.
V. Table S-3 ,
The Applicants reserve comment on this contention at this Pime due to the fact that no mandate has issued "
from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the S-3 case and the Commission has yet to indicate its views as to the proper handling of this
' issue.
b .
r I
I CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, NECNP proposed contentions I.B.2, I.C. (if mcdified as suggested !
herein), I.D.1 (if modified as suggested herein), I.D.2 (if modified as suggested herein), I.G, I.M (if modified as suggested herein), I.N, I.U (limited to GDC only), I.W (first sentence only), and III (general statement only) should be admitted, and the balance of NECNP's proposed contentions should be excluded.
Respectfully submitted, s/ Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
s/ R. K.. Gad III s/ Ropes & Gray Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray .
225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone: 423-6100 Counsel for the Applicants Dated: June 28, 1982
?
t e e
\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the' attorneys for the applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 28, 1982 I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Cooperative Membere for Atomic Safety and Licensing Responsible Investment Board Ptnel Box 65 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Com? ission Plymouth, NH 03264 Washington, DC 20555 Rep. Nicholas J. Costello Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke. Whitehall Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Amesbury, MA 01913 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald L. Herzberg, M.D.
Washington, D.C. 20555 George Margolis, M.D.
Hitchcock Hospital Dr. Oscar H. Paris Hanover, NH 03755 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Rep. Beverly Hollingworth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coastal Chamber of Commerce Washington, DC 20555 209 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ms. Patti Jacobson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Orange Street .
Washington, DC 20555 Newburyport, MA 01950 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Assistant Attorney General E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Department of the Attorney Assistant Attorney General General Office of the Attorney General Augusta, ME 04333 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 516 Office of the Executive Legal Manchester, NH 03105 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Robert L. Chiesa, Esquire Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls 95 Market Street Manchester, NH 03101 Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Mr. Robert F. Preston 226 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108
/s Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
___