|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML18011B1361994-12-13013 December 1994 Responds to NRC RAI Re BWR Core Shroud Generic Safety Assessment Re Conductivity by Fuel Cycle.Ge Rept Providing Info W/Alpha Designations in Place of Plant Names Encl.Ge Ltr,Also Encl,Provides Plant Names.Encl Withheld ML20058M0361993-04-12012 April 1993 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards Records in App L Which Are Being Withheld Partially for Listed Reasons,(Ref FOIA Exemptions 5) ML20059M8421990-06-13013 June 1990 Forwards NRC Performance Indicators for First Quarter 1990. W/O Encl ML20151V9791988-07-28028 July 1988 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Plant.App a Documents Encl & Available in PDR ML20206F3261986-06-13013 June 1986 Further Response to FOIA Request for Six Categories of Documents Re Facilities.App a Documents Available in Pdr.App B & C Documents Encl.Documents Also Available in Pdr.W/O App B & C Documents ML20206F3301986-06-13013 June 1986 Further Response to FOIA Request for Six Categories of Documents Re Facilities.App a Documents Available in Pdr.App B & C Documents Encl.Documents Also Available in PDR ML20099J8141984-04-25025 April 1984 FOIA Request for Documents Re Electrical Relay Failures Including Class 1E Relay Failures at Listed Plants & Utilization of GE Type Hfa 51 Series Ac Relays or Other Relays Using Lexan as Coil Spool Matl ML20027A8911982-09-22022 September 1982 FOIA Request for NRC Preliminary & Final Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequence Results for Facilities ML20086Q7091982-07-28028 July 1982 Forwards Analyses of Antirotation Pin & Impeller Ring Wear, Per Request.Encl Info Should Be Treated as company- Sensitive ML20055A2601982-05-28028 May 1982 Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Re Requests by Licensees for Exemption or Extension Beyond 820201 Date Specified by Final Rule,Commission Analysis,Comments,Or Actions Re Emergency Planning.Forwards App a Documents ML20051P0041982-05-0707 May 1982 Advises of Util Position Declining to Pay Charges Asserted in NRC 820415 Ltr.Charges W/O Regulatory Basis.Other Reasons for Declining Asserted in Pending Case of New England Power Co Vs NRC ML20042B4561982-03-19019 March 1982 Ack Receipt of Response to 820203 Ltr.Requests NRC Evaluation of Revised Emergency Plans & Any Addl Public Documents Re Communications Between Util & NRC Concerning Emergency Plans ML20042B7141982-03-19019 March 1982 Forwards Endorsements 66 & 67 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML20042B7091982-03-16016 March 1982 Forwards Endorsement 8 to Nelia Binder EB-31 & Endorsement 65 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML20041B2091982-02-17017 February 1982 Forwards Endorsement 50 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20010J4681981-09-30030 September 1981 Forwards Endorsements 47 & 48 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20009H6841981-08-0303 August 1981 Forwards Updated Population Data & Description of Road Network Improvements Projected During First Yr of Plant Operation,In Response to NRC 810724 Request Re Evacuation Time & Population Estimates ML20010C5851981-05-27027 May 1981 Advises That Because of M Cleeton Medical History,Any Extra Radiation Would Pose Risk.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004B6901981-05-19019 May 1981 Forwards AR & MW Cleeton Exceptions to ASLB Partial Initial Decision ML19347E9231981-05-11011 May 1981 Forwards Endorsements 45 & 46 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20008F9011981-05-0606 May 1981 Clarifies Response to 10CFR50.34(e) Provided in PSAR Amend 43 Per 810506 Request.Test Date & Analysis Will Include Igniter Performance & Endurance Characteristics If Option Chosen Continues to Be Deliberate Ignition Sys ML19347E5171981-05-0505 May 1981 Clarifies Statement in 810429 PSAR Amend 43 Re Containment Sys Design Integrity,In Response to NRC 810505 Telcon Request ML20004F3831981-04-30030 April 1981 Forwards Util Latest Annual Rept,Portions of Which May Be Pertinent to Issues in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl. W/O Rept.Related Correspondence ML19347D8511981-03-31031 March 1981 Forwards Endorsements 5 & 6 to Nelia Binder EB-31, Endorsement 5 to Maelu Binder XB-31,Endorsement 44 to Maelu Policy MF-58 & Endorsement 58 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML19350C7931981-03-19019 March 1981 Informs That Commonwealth of Ma Reviewed Parties' Responses to ASLB 810219 Order.Aslb Should Schedule Hearings on Emergency Planning & Other TMI-related Issues for Sept 1981 ML19343D5261981-03-0404 March 1981 Advises of Review of Evacuation Roadway Network Re Facility. Traffic Control Beyond Emergency Planning Zone Will Avoid Congestion within Zone.Effective Traffic Mgt Plan Is Needed ML19350B5321981-02-27027 February 1981 Informs That Commonwealth of Ma Needs Time to Evaluate Suppl to SER Re Emergency Planning,To Prepare New Interrogatories, to Evaluate Answers to Interrogatories & to Prepare Written Testimony.W/Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc ML19341D4641981-02-25025 February 1981 Forwards Intervenors Cleeton Exceptions to ASLB 810202 Partial Initial Decision ML19341C4871981-02-24024 February 1981 Forwards Endorsement 43 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML19341C9131981-02-23023 February 1981 Requests Svc of Documents Upon Util Be Made to Tg Dignan Instead of Gh Lewald.Address Unchanged ML20003C1181981-02-18018 February 1981 Forwards Commonwealth of Ma 810218 Exceptions to ASLB 810202 Partial Initial Decision ML20003B4821981-02-0909 February 1981 Forwards Endorsements 56,57 & 4 to ANI Policies NF-188, NF-188 & Binder EB-31,respectively & Endorsement 4 to Maelu Binder XB-31 ML19341B2671981-01-23023 January 1981 Informs of No Plans for Filing Application & Review Requests,Per NRC 801205 Request.Cp Receipt or Const Completion Dates Undetermined Until NRC Issuance of Policy for Resumption of CP Licensing ML19345C2711980-10-29029 October 1980 Requests Info Re Facilities W/Active CPs Pending,License Definitions & Requirements for Floating Nuclear Plants ML19347B3151980-10-10010 October 1980 Forwards Amend 40 to Psar.Amend Incorporates Revised Section 13.3,emergency Planning,In Response to Final Emergency Planning Rule ML20062J3251980-09-30030 September 1980 Discusses Emergency Planning Regulations,In Response to Re L Boyd Concerns.Fema Is Responsible for Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness in States & Communities Around Nuclear Plants ML19331E2871980-07-14014 July 1980 Forwards Recommendation for Item 3.1.6/3.2.4 Re Cable Combustibility for Fire Protection Review.Recommends That Licensee Be Required to Coat Okonite & Kerite Cables ML19330C2071980-07-14014 July 1980 Responds to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Inaccessible Block Walls Surveyed & Program to re-evaluate Walls Near safety-related Sys Developed.Justification for re-evaluation Criteria to Be Submitted by 801108 ML19323H6951980-06-0909 June 1980 Request Mod of First Page of Distribution List.Distribution List Encl ML19323G8941980-05-0202 May 1980 Responds to ASLB 800327 Order Requesting Date of Planned Testimony Re Emergency Planning Issue.Written Testimony Will Be Filed within 4-6 Wks from Receipt of NRC Evaluation. Related Correspondence ML19323F3761980-05-0101 May 1980 Submits Applicants' Response to ASLB 800327 Order Re Emergency Planning Hearing.Requests Reconsideration of ASLB Position on Previously Admitted Contention Re Emergency Planning.Related Correspondence Encl ML19323A8721980-04-30030 April 1980 Forwards Semiannual Marine Ecology Rept 15,Jan-Dec 1979. ML19323A8681980-04-30030 April 1980 Forwards Semiannual Marine Ecology Rept 15,Jan-Dec 1979. ML20062J3301980-04-18018 April 1980 Requests Response to Encl L Boyd Inquiry About Emergency Preparedness Around Facility ML19323G2211980-04-0808 April 1980 Expresses Concern Re on-job Intoxication of Facility Employees.Boston Herald American 800403 Article Encl ML19305C3711980-03-17017 March 1980 Responds to NRC Request Re Necessity of Antitrust Hearing Following Ma Municipals' Withdrawal of Petition to Intervene.Antitrust Hearing Unnecessary Re Instant Application ML19294C2701980-02-28028 February 1980 Requests Opportunity to Discuss Priority of NRC CP Activities in post-TMI Period.Utils Are Concerned About Availability of NRC Resources in Coming Yr to Deal W/Related Hearings.Nrc Resources Can Be Optimized ML19296D2931980-02-25025 February 1980 Forwards Endorsement 38 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML19294B9081980-02-14014 February 1980 Corrects Typographical Errors & Omissions in Applicant 800209 Statement Filed in Response to ASLB Request Re Emergency Planning as Proper Issue in Hearings ML19260D6061980-02-0505 February 1980 Forwards Endorsements 50 & 51 to Nelia Policy NF-188 1994-12-13
[Table view] Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML18011B1361994-12-13013 December 1994 Responds to NRC RAI Re BWR Core Shroud Generic Safety Assessment Re Conductivity by Fuel Cycle.Ge Rept Providing Info W/Alpha Designations in Place of Plant Names Encl.Ge Ltr,Also Encl,Provides Plant Names.Encl Withheld ML20099J8141984-04-25025 April 1984 FOIA Request for Documents Re Electrical Relay Failures Including Class 1E Relay Failures at Listed Plants & Utilization of GE Type Hfa 51 Series Ac Relays or Other Relays Using Lexan as Coil Spool Matl ML20027A8911982-09-22022 September 1982 FOIA Request for NRC Preliminary & Final Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequence Results for Facilities ML20086Q7091982-07-28028 July 1982 Forwards Analyses of Antirotation Pin & Impeller Ring Wear, Per Request.Encl Info Should Be Treated as company- Sensitive ML20051P0041982-05-0707 May 1982 Advises of Util Position Declining to Pay Charges Asserted in NRC 820415 Ltr.Charges W/O Regulatory Basis.Other Reasons for Declining Asserted in Pending Case of New England Power Co Vs NRC ML20042B7141982-03-19019 March 1982 Forwards Endorsements 66 & 67 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML20042B4561982-03-19019 March 1982 Ack Receipt of Response to 820203 Ltr.Requests NRC Evaluation of Revised Emergency Plans & Any Addl Public Documents Re Communications Between Util & NRC Concerning Emergency Plans ML20042B7091982-03-16016 March 1982 Forwards Endorsement 8 to Nelia Binder EB-31 & Endorsement 65 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML20041B2091982-02-17017 February 1982 Forwards Endorsement 50 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20010J4681981-09-30030 September 1981 Forwards Endorsements 47 & 48 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20009H6841981-08-0303 August 1981 Forwards Updated Population Data & Description of Road Network Improvements Projected During First Yr of Plant Operation,In Response to NRC 810724 Request Re Evacuation Time & Population Estimates ML20010C5851981-05-27027 May 1981 Advises That Because of M Cleeton Medical History,Any Extra Radiation Would Pose Risk.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004B6901981-05-19019 May 1981 Forwards AR & MW Cleeton Exceptions to ASLB Partial Initial Decision ML19347E9231981-05-11011 May 1981 Forwards Endorsements 45 & 46 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20008F9011981-05-0606 May 1981 Clarifies Response to 10CFR50.34(e) Provided in PSAR Amend 43 Per 810506 Request.Test Date & Analysis Will Include Igniter Performance & Endurance Characteristics If Option Chosen Continues to Be Deliberate Ignition Sys ML19347E5171981-05-0505 May 1981 Clarifies Statement in 810429 PSAR Amend 43 Re Containment Sys Design Integrity,In Response to NRC 810505 Telcon Request ML20004F3831981-04-30030 April 1981 Forwards Util Latest Annual Rept,Portions of Which May Be Pertinent to Issues in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl. W/O Rept.Related Correspondence ML19347D8511981-03-31031 March 1981 Forwards Endorsements 5 & 6 to Nelia Binder EB-31, Endorsement 5 to Maelu Binder XB-31,Endorsement 44 to Maelu Policy MF-58 & Endorsement 58 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML19350C7931981-03-19019 March 1981 Informs That Commonwealth of Ma Reviewed Parties' Responses to ASLB 810219 Order.Aslb Should Schedule Hearings on Emergency Planning & Other TMI-related Issues for Sept 1981 ML19343D5261981-03-0404 March 1981 Advises of Review of Evacuation Roadway Network Re Facility. Traffic Control Beyond Emergency Planning Zone Will Avoid Congestion within Zone.Effective Traffic Mgt Plan Is Needed ML19350B5321981-02-27027 February 1981 Informs That Commonwealth of Ma Needs Time to Evaluate Suppl to SER Re Emergency Planning,To Prepare New Interrogatories, to Evaluate Answers to Interrogatories & to Prepare Written Testimony.W/Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc ML19341D4641981-02-25025 February 1981 Forwards Intervenors Cleeton Exceptions to ASLB 810202 Partial Initial Decision ML19341C4871981-02-24024 February 1981 Forwards Endorsement 43 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML19341C9131981-02-23023 February 1981 Requests Svc of Documents Upon Util Be Made to Tg Dignan Instead of Gh Lewald.Address Unchanged ML20003C1181981-02-18018 February 1981 Forwards Commonwealth of Ma 810218 Exceptions to ASLB 810202 Partial Initial Decision ML20003B4821981-02-0909 February 1981 Forwards Endorsements 56,57 & 4 to ANI Policies NF-188, NF-188 & Binder EB-31,respectively & Endorsement 4 to Maelu Binder XB-31 ML19341B2671981-01-23023 January 1981 Informs of No Plans for Filing Application & Review Requests,Per NRC 801205 Request.Cp Receipt or Const Completion Dates Undetermined Until NRC Issuance of Policy for Resumption of CP Licensing ML19345C2711980-10-29029 October 1980 Requests Info Re Facilities W/Active CPs Pending,License Definitions & Requirements for Floating Nuclear Plants ML19347B3151980-10-10010 October 1980 Forwards Amend 40 to Psar.Amend Incorporates Revised Section 13.3,emergency Planning,In Response to Final Emergency Planning Rule ML19330C2071980-07-14014 July 1980 Responds to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Inaccessible Block Walls Surveyed & Program to re-evaluate Walls Near safety-related Sys Developed.Justification for re-evaluation Criteria to Be Submitted by 801108 ML19331E2871980-07-14014 July 1980 Forwards Recommendation for Item 3.1.6/3.2.4 Re Cable Combustibility for Fire Protection Review.Recommends That Licensee Be Required to Coat Okonite & Kerite Cables ML19323H6951980-06-0909 June 1980 Request Mod of First Page of Distribution List.Distribution List Encl ML19323G8941980-05-0202 May 1980 Responds to ASLB 800327 Order Requesting Date of Planned Testimony Re Emergency Planning Issue.Written Testimony Will Be Filed within 4-6 Wks from Receipt of NRC Evaluation. Related Correspondence ML19323F3761980-05-0101 May 1980 Submits Applicants' Response to ASLB 800327 Order Re Emergency Planning Hearing.Requests Reconsideration of ASLB Position on Previously Admitted Contention Re Emergency Planning.Related Correspondence Encl ML20062J3301980-04-18018 April 1980 Requests Response to Encl L Boyd Inquiry About Emergency Preparedness Around Facility ML19323G2211980-04-0808 April 1980 Expresses Concern Re on-job Intoxication of Facility Employees.Boston Herald American 800403 Article Encl ML19305C3711980-03-17017 March 1980 Responds to NRC Request Re Necessity of Antitrust Hearing Following Ma Municipals' Withdrawal of Petition to Intervene.Antitrust Hearing Unnecessary Re Instant Application ML19294C2701980-02-28028 February 1980 Requests Opportunity to Discuss Priority of NRC CP Activities in post-TMI Period.Utils Are Concerned About Availability of NRC Resources in Coming Yr to Deal W/Related Hearings.Nrc Resources Can Be Optimized ML19296D2931980-02-25025 February 1980 Forwards Endorsement 38 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML19294B9081980-02-14014 February 1980 Corrects Typographical Errors & Omissions in Applicant 800209 Statement Filed in Response to ASLB Request Re Emergency Planning as Proper Issue in Hearings ML19260D6061980-02-0505 February 1980 Forwards Endorsements 50 & 51 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML19257A7031980-01-0202 January 1980 Forwards 780209 Ltr to NRC Re J & s Pires & R & D Fitts Notice of Claims Against Util.Both Claimants Have Filed Suit ML19270H8001979-12-27027 December 1979 Forwards Design Review & Supplemental Recommendations Re Exposed Steel protection,self-contained Breathing Apparatus, Generation Seals,Fire Detector Testing,Cable Combustibility & Dc Power Sys Hazard Analysis ML19256F4471979-11-20020 November 1979 Notifies That 791119 Meeting W/Ma Wildlife Federation & NRC Will Be Rescheduled Either 791123 or Filing Date for Ma Wildlife Federation Pleadings Moved to 791130 ML19256F2971979-11-12012 November 1979 Informs of Minor Change in Schedule for Requests for Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Possibility Exists of Stipulation Between Nrc,Intervenor Ma Wildlife Federation & Applicant ML19262A8891979-11-0808 November 1979 Discusses Applicant 791101 Transmittal of Four Documents on Revolving Credit Agreement.If Introduced as Evidence,State of Ma Reserves Right to cross-examine Rebuttal Testimony ML19260B1201979-11-0505 November 1979 Forwards Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Partial Initial Decision ML19260B1261979-11-0505 November 1979 Forwards Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19210D7701979-11-0101 November 1979 Forwards Util & Bank Consortium 790731 Credit & Loan agreement,791012 Amend 1,State of Ma Dept of Public Util Orders Re Agreement & Util Affidavit ML19260C2131979-10-29029 October 1979 Responds to 790913 Request for Addl Info Needed to Complete Review of Util Response to IE Bulletin 78-10 Re Bergen- Patterson Hydraulic Shack Suppressor Accumulator Spring coils.Safety-related Hydraulic Snubbers Inspected in 1979 1994-12-13
[Table view] Category:UTILITY TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20051P0041982-05-0707 May 1982 Advises of Util Position Declining to Pay Charges Asserted in NRC 820415 Ltr.Charges W/O Regulatory Basis.Other Reasons for Declining Asserted in Pending Case of New England Power Co Vs NRC ML20009H6841981-08-0303 August 1981 Forwards Updated Population Data & Description of Road Network Improvements Projected During First Yr of Plant Operation,In Response to NRC 810724 Request Re Evacuation Time & Population Estimates ML20008F9011981-05-0606 May 1981 Clarifies Response to 10CFR50.34(e) Provided in PSAR Amend 43 Per 810506 Request.Test Date & Analysis Will Include Igniter Performance & Endurance Characteristics If Option Chosen Continues to Be Deliberate Ignition Sys ML19347E5171981-05-0505 May 1981 Clarifies Statement in 810429 PSAR Amend 43 Re Containment Sys Design Integrity,In Response to NRC 810505 Telcon Request ML20004F3831981-04-30030 April 1981 Forwards Util Latest Annual Rept,Portions of Which May Be Pertinent to Issues in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl. W/O Rept.Related Correspondence ML19341C4871981-02-24024 February 1981 Forwards Endorsement 43 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML20003B4821981-02-0909 February 1981 Forwards Endorsements 56,57 & 4 to ANI Policies NF-188, NF-188 & Binder EB-31,respectively & Endorsement 4 to Maelu Binder XB-31 ML19341B2671981-01-23023 January 1981 Informs of No Plans for Filing Application & Review Requests,Per NRC 801205 Request.Cp Receipt or Const Completion Dates Undetermined Until NRC Issuance of Policy for Resumption of CP Licensing ML19347B3151980-10-10010 October 1980 Forwards Amend 40 to Psar.Amend Incorporates Revised Section 13.3,emergency Planning,In Response to Final Emergency Planning Rule ML19330C2071980-07-14014 July 1980 Responds to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Inaccessible Block Walls Surveyed & Program to re-evaluate Walls Near safety-related Sys Developed.Justification for re-evaluation Criteria to Be Submitted by 801108 ML19323H6951980-06-0909 June 1980 Request Mod of First Page of Distribution List.Distribution List Encl ML19294C2701980-02-28028 February 1980 Requests Opportunity to Discuss Priority of NRC CP Activities in post-TMI Period.Utils Are Concerned About Availability of NRC Resources in Coming Yr to Deal W/Related Hearings.Nrc Resources Can Be Optimized ML19296D2931980-02-25025 February 1980 Forwards Endorsement 38 to Maelu Policy MF-58 ML19260D6061980-02-0505 February 1980 Forwards Endorsements 50 & 51 to Nelia Policy NF-188 ML19256F4471979-11-20020 November 1979 Notifies That 791119 Meeting W/Ma Wildlife Federation & NRC Will Be Rescheduled Either 791123 or Filing Date for Ma Wildlife Federation Pleadings Moved to 791130 ML19260C2131979-10-29029 October 1979 Responds to 790913 Request for Addl Info Needed to Complete Review of Util Response to IE Bulletin 78-10 Re Bergen- Patterson Hydraulic Shack Suppressor Accumulator Spring coils.Safety-related Hydraulic Snubbers Inspected in 1979 ML19250B5961979-10-25025 October 1979 Forwards Amend 39 to Psar,Incorporating Commitments Re TMI.Cross-index Between Commitments Relating to TMI & Previous Correspondence Encl ML19209C2711979-10-0505 October 1979 Responds to NRC 790917 Ltr Re Interaction Between nonsafety- Grade & safety-grade Equipment.Util Assessment Performed.No Impacts on Required Safety Actions Identified.One Potential Analysis Conclusion Identified & Justified ML19207B4551979-08-24024 August 1979 Responds to NRC 790814 & 22 Requests for Clarification Re 790731 & 0806 Ltrs.Forwards Replacement to Attachment 1 of 790731 Ltr Re Positions in App a of NUREG-0578.Forwards Response to HR Denton 790820 Memo Re NUREG-0578 ML19249A9841979-08-17017 August 1979 Forwards 750831 Evacuation Analysis for Pilgrim Site, Prepared by Environ Research & Technology,Inc ML19248D2251979-08-0606 August 1979 Responds to 790802 Request for Clarification of 790731 Response Re Monitoring of Core Conditions by Incore Thermocouples,Ie Bulletin 79-06B,790724 Action Plan for Promptly Improving Emergency Preparedness & NUREG-0578 ML19242B8281979-08-0202 August 1979 Responds to NRC 790720 Request Re Means of Informing Citizens of Need for Protective Action within 10-mile Radius of Nuclear Emergency ML19242A7811979-07-31031 July 1979 Confirms Util Commitment to Comply W/Requirements of NUREG-0578,IE Bulletin 79-06B & NRC 790724 Memo Re Improvement of Emergency Preparedness ML20136B2741979-07-0505 July 1979 Forwards Correspondence Between NRC & Util,In Response to Rt Cole Questions During 790624 Session in Plymouth,Ma Occupational Exposure Incident at Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19207B8871979-06-29029 June 1979 Forwards Applicant Second Motion for Official Notice of Certain State Statues,Court Decisions & Documents.Second Motion Supersedes Prior Motion Filed on 790611 Which Contained Several Errors ML19241B8321979-06-29029 June 1979 Forwards Revised Supplemental Testimony on Need for Power Issue for ASLB 790716 Hearing.Testimony Supersedes 790518 Filing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246C3661979-06-29029 June 1979 Forwards Util 790629 Second Motion That ASLB Take Official Notice of Certain State Statutes,Court Decisions & Documents Re Util Exhibit 15.Motion Corrects & Supercedes 790611 Motion ML19246C0191979-06-11011 June 1979 Forwards Boston Edison 790611 Motion to Take Official Notice of Certain State Statutes & Court Decisions of Nh,Ct,Vt & Ri ML19276G1001979-05-10010 May 1979 Forwards Responses to Question Re Comparison of Projected Population Densities in PSAR & 1978 Update to 1974 Site Selection Study ML19282A1661979-05-0808 May 1979 Forwards Response to NRC Inquiries Re Need for Power & Cost of 3-year Delay in Operation.Response Based on NRC Load Forecast.Starting Point Not Conceded to Be Appropriete by Util.Facility Will Be Needed in 1985 ML19276F9211979-04-17017 April 1979 Forwards Annual Financial Rept 1978 & Securities & Exchange Commission Form 10-K ML19322A3211979-04-17017 April 1979 Preparation & Submittal of Detailed Responses to Draft Suppl to Fes Cannot Be Completed Before 790418 Deadline. Detailed Responses Will Be Forwarded within 2 Weeks ML19282A7591979-02-28028 February 1979 Annual Rept Re Personnel & man-rem Exposure by Job Function ML19282A6251979-02-26026 February 1979 Forwards Endorsement 1 to Maelu Policy XB-31 ML19269D1101979-02-20020 February 1979 in Response to 790119 Request for Certain Commitments Re Atws,Advises That Plant Design Will Not Preclude Supplementary Protection Sys or Demonstration of Functionability of Cooling Valves ML19261B4161979-02-14014 February 1979 Forwards Amend 49 to Indemnity Agreement NF-188 & Amend 2 to Indemnity Agreement XB-31,reflecting Changes in Subscribing Companies ML19263C0661979-01-29029 January 1979 Forwards Financial Info Requested by Nrc:Monthly Income Statements for Oct,Nov & Dec 1978.Form 10-K Will Be Forwarded When Available ML20083K7371979-01-24024 January 1979 Forwards Endorsement 2 to Binder XB-31,Endorsement 2 to Binder EB-31 & Endorsement 48 to Binder NF-188 ML19261B7431979-01-19019 January 1979 Requests Action to Expedite Technical Review of CENPD-255, Class IE Qualification. ML19274D2981979-01-16016 January 1979 Forwards Endorsement 36 to Insurance Policy MF-58 Issued 781214,setting Forth 1979 Advance,Standard & Reserve Premiums ML19263B9371979-01-11011 January 1979 Ack Receipt of 781206 Ltr.Copies Have Been Forwarded to Appropriate Officers to Remind Them of Requirements Re Accuracy & Completeness of Info Provided to NRC ML19274D0671978-12-0808 December 1978 Expresses Util'S Opinion That Policy Consideration Favor a Decision to Use Existing ASLB Process to Resolve the Alternate Site Question.Rejects Preparation & Recirculation of Suppl Environ Statement ML20062D3051978-11-15015 November 1978 Submits 2 Final Responses to NRC Requests for Info Needed for Constr Permit Applicants Financial Qual Review.Forwards Statement of Major Accounting Changes Implemented During 1978 & Financial Statements for Period Ending 780930 ML20062C8151978-11-0707 November 1978 Forwards Responses Per NRC Request of 781102 Re Financial Quals Review of Beco'S Appl for Permit to Design & Constr Subj Facil.Info Supplied Concerns Beco Short Term Borrowings & Debt Interest Coverage ML20062C5361978-11-0303 November 1978 Forwards Response to 781025 NRC Request Foraddl Info Req to Proceed W/Financial Review of Beco Appl for Permit to Design & Constru of Facil.Covers June-Sept 1978 Earning Results & Financial Statements for Period Ending 780930 ML20062D9321978-10-20020 October 1978 Applicant'S Memorandum in Opposition to Recirculation of a Fes Suppl.Reasons That It Is Not Req by NEPA ML20147E9401978-10-10010 October 1978 Informs That Info Re Effects of Elevated Temp on Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads Will Be Submitted by 781115 Instead of 781001 Due to Delay in Completing Transient Analyses ML20062A6611978-09-27027 September 1978 Forwards Amend 9 to CP Application,Consisting of General & Financial Info ML19289D8051978-06-30030 June 1978 Forwards Addl Financial Info in Response to 780531 Request. Requests Proprietary Treatment of Certain Matl (Ref 10CFR2.790) ML19289D8011978-06-23023 June 1978 Forwards Addl Financial Info in Response to 780531 Request. Requests Proprietary Treatment for Certain Matl (Ref 10CFR2.790) 1982-05-07
[Table view] |
Text
. .
,. ~ . .,
s *
, ,.,. . (, 7 %,. .. L.}.,
. $$ e',
, ~
+?.Y~ f.c ;&r x .)o.r.,e-Q n -
t;,
p*h .-
ms # ,
. APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO , ,
RECIRCULATION OF AN FES SUPPLEMENT IN '
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY ET AL. (PILGRIM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2)
Docket No. 50 471 The Question: When in the course of proceedings on a con-struction permit application a Licensing
. Board has " satisfied itself that the staff's '
[FES] alternate site analysis [is] not ade-quate . . . [and] has in effect called upon the staff to supplement its efforts in this particular regard"l/, must the staff first prepare and circulate an'FES alternate-site- -
analysis supplement prior to'further develop-ment of the record. .
Response: No. As we demonstrate in the discussii5n that follows, short of a complete alteration in what was initially proposed, recirculation . -
need not be considered. Nothing in NEPA re-
. . quires a different result.
1/ Boston Edison' Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), ALAB-479, 7 NRC CCH 1 30,301 (May 25, 1978).
781201 ao.Ti -
l .
. Y 1
-~
. o-e DISCUSSICN n
In Midland2 / the Appeal Board drew a distinction be-
. tween impact statements prepared in conjunction with the ~ -
~
Commission's activities which were not subject to evalua tion through an adjudicatory hearin6, and impact state- -
ments prepared for licensing proceedings where the oppor- --
tunity for such a hearing is available. As the Board recounted in Maine Yankee 3/, it held in Midland'that in the case of an impact statement prepared for Commission activities, it was governed by Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, 463, F.2d.783,787 (D. C. Cir. .
1971). However, in the case where an impact statement ,
waspreparedforlicensingproceedg7gs,itconcluded, there is nct the same. requirement._. .
. This dichotomy is sanctioned not only, by reason of
'the fact that intervenors and'other parties have an op-portunity to make their submissions on points in issue in .
every licensing proceeding 5/ but by the force of Commis-sion regulation as well.6/ .
~
2/ - Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant,
- Units 1 and 2), ALAS-123, 6 AEC 331, 334, reversed, sub nom Aeschliman v. NRC
~
547 F.2d 622 (D. C. Cir. 1976), reversed, sub nom Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
- v. NRDC, U. S. , 55 L. Ed. o0 (1978). , ,
~
3/ Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station) ALAS-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1013; reconsideration denied, ALAB-166, 6 AEC 1146 (1973); remanded other grounds CLI-74-2, 7 AEC'2, reaffirmed, ALAB-175, 7 AEC 62 (1974); affirmed _sub nom.
Citisens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291 (D. C. Cir. 1975). .
b/ Id. 6 AEC 1013 2,/ Ibid. Cf.. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S t 392, 419 n. 1 (dissentine opinion).
6/ 10 CFR 51 52(b)(3). -
l
-2_ .
..- + .
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ mE1l'II iie
- . I i
. n-The Commission's different NEPA requirements in those actions which it initiates and in licensing pro-cedures are in no way at odds with NEPA. Indeed, in re-sponding to a challenge in Seabrookl/ that 10 CFR 51 52(b)(3),
- in providing that the FES is deened modified by subsequent .
decisions of its adjudicatory tribunals violates NEPA, the' Commission observed in its January 6, 1978 decision that, . . .
t "Two courts of appeal hate approved of that rule'. The Court of Appeals for ,the District of Columbia Circ' lit has ap- .
. proved our practice as not departing .
. 'from either the' letter or the spirit of
[NEPA]. . ' Citizens For Safe Power v. NRC, . .
524 F.2d 1291, 1294 n. 5 (D. C. Cir.
1975). See, also Ecolcgy Action v. -
AEC 1974)492 whereF.2d 998,Friendly Judge 1001-02recognized (2nd Cir.
,that omissions from an'FES can be cured by subsecuent consideration of the issue in an agency hearing." (Emphasis added).
The application of 10 CFR 51 52(b)(3) to " cure omis-sions" in an-FES has not been infrequent. While we do'not .
purport to have made an exhaustive search of the cases, the following examples serve to make the point. We can
~
begin with Maine Yankee, supra, wherein FEE modification by the Appeal Board without recirculation was affirmed in Citizens For Safe Power suora. Next we find that the .
Appeal Board in LaSallek/ remanded that proceeding to the ' -
Licensing Board for a new NEPA balancin's and for such ad- .
ditional findings and conclusions as were warranted by .
the existing record as supplemented by evidence to be adduced during the proceedings on remand.2/ -
2/ Public Service Comnany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-78-1, '
7 NRC 1, 29 n.43; affirmed sub nom New -
England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v.
- F. 2d NRC (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 1978).
8/ Commonwealth Edison Comoany-(LaSalle ,
County Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) '
ALAB-153, 6 NRC 821, Oct. 19, 1973 - -
Id. at 825 L
2/
l . .
9
t
. 's-It appeared in that proceed'ing that in the staff FES, the netiloss in agricultural production attributable to the LaSalle station could be offset by increa: ed pro-duction or by returning to' production acreage in the . .
county currently in a Federal Feed Grain Program. How- .
ever, prior to the initial decision in that case, the federal program had been discontinued.10/ Further, the -
- recreational benefits attributed to the station's cool-ing lake in the FES were left in dou'at with the reduc-tion in the size of the proposed lake as a result of a -
settlement with intervenors in that proceeding.ll/
In Comanche Peak 1 2/ the Appeal Board found that the staff FES failed to give adequate consideration to the . .
consequences of the loss of the station reservoir site for agricultural use. The Board tentatively concluded that a remand was necessary for the fulfillment of the Commission's NEPA responsibilities and invited memoranda from the parties as to.why it should not give effect to its tentative conclusion._13/. The Applicant responded to the Board's invitation but the staff did not lE/ The Applicant urged the Board to make the necessary NEPA findings on the record before it which had been spon-sored by the Applicant. This the Board declined to do "
stating that,
11/ Id. at 824. -
12/ Texas Utilities Generating C'omoany et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-225, 1 NRC 4 (January 23, 1975).
1]/ Id,. at 5-6.
14/ Texas Utilities Generating Comoany et al. ~
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-260, l NRC 51 (February 26, 1975). -
= = ,
e
-p- .
? .
. . I e.- . .
. r,,
e
"[T]he FES stands as the product of the study made by that segment of the agency which has the specific function of fer-reting out the baseline facts upon which ,
the final environmental judgments re-
- quired by NEPA must be made. That being '
so it necessarily is a prime ingredient -
in the ultimate fashioning of the agency's NEPA determinations by the adjt'.dicatory
. tribunals."ll/
Instead the Board requested the, staff to submit to it in affidavit form its own evaluation of the nature and quality of the land involved.15/ On receipt of the staff's .
affidavit, the Board concluded that a remand was no longer required. It declared that, .
, "The FES is, however, to be deemed modi-fled to include the* contents of the
[ staff] affidavit."ll/
' Limerick Generating Station 1E/ presents a case where consideration of an environmental issue, the " river follower" alternative (which the Appeal Board found -
13/ Id,. at 55-56. .
16/ Id. .
~
12/ Texas Utilities Generating Company et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-266, 1 NRC 377, 378-79.
(April 23, 1975.) -
18/
Philadelphia Electric Comenny (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 .
.,' and 2), ALAB-262, 1 NRC 163 (March 17, 1975) 4
-9 8
S b
e @ b wwy 4
t
. es.
necessary for a full.NEPA revieu) was not specifically discussed in the FES but was presented and rej ected during the course of the hearings before the Licensing Board.19/ - ..
The Appeal' Board saw "no reason why the ' river . . ,
follower' alternative as presented by 'a federal agency for NEPA purposes' could not have been first considered ~
at the [ Licensing Board] hearing thus avoiding a delay which would have been occasioned by a recasting of the .
FES and a recirculation of it.n20/ The Appeal Board in .
so modifying the Initial Decision (FES) noted that its research had uncovered no judicial decision applying to -
NEPA which cuts against the conclusion it reached. This '
.the Board found " scarcely surprising in view of the rule of reason which' governs in the administration of- -
that statute, Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. '
- v. Morton, 458 F.2d 627, 034 (D. C. cir. 1972)".
"To us at least there would be nothing .
reasonable about an iron-clad require-ment that the FES be redone, in advance -
. of an adjudicatory hearing on environ- .
, mental issues, whenever a late develop-ment raises the possibility that the project may be somewhat less beneficial than previously thought"31/
. Although not cited by the intervenors in support of "
their contention for a supplemental FES recirculation, -
the Board distinguished its holding from the decisions in -
- NRDC v. Morton, 337 F. Supp. 170 (D.D.C. 1972) and -
I-291 Why? Association v. Burns 372 F. Supp. (D. Conn. -
1974) noting that:
g/ Id. at.171. ,
20/ Id. at 196. - -
21/ Id. at 196-97 - . .
1 G
1 -
y
". __a h _
"In the former, the ' court held that an addendum prepared to cure a deficiency .
in the original envircnmental impact statement had to be reci'rculated for' -
" comment'and review". In I-291 Why?, '
a highway project was enjoined in cir- ,
]
cumstances where the results of belated i studies made of certain environmental consequences of the project (e.g., in- .
creased noise and impact on air quality) -
were neither included in the environ-mental impait statement nor considered by any one other than the official (an '
engineer in the employ of the , Federal Highway Administration) who had the authority to approve federal funding of .
the project. ,
A E E
[N]ot having been circulated, the
. NRDC and I-291 Why? evaluations were available for appraisal only by the .
agency officials making the ultimate
~
decision on the proj ect. Not so here. .
Under the procedures of this agency, the analysis was put forward at a public, ,
adjudicatory hearing and was fully tested. And' Commission regulations not ,.
only contemplate that the ultimate NEPA judgments be made on the basis of the entire record before the adjudicatory tribunals but, as well, that the findings ,
and conclusions of those tribunals be -
deemed to amend the FES (insofar as dif-ferent therefrom). 10 CFR (1974 ed.) '
Part 50, Appendix D, Section A.ll; -
10 CFR 51.52(b)(31 39 F.R. 26285 (July 18. 1974)".11/
4 22/ Id. at 197 - -
, s e *- , ,,, ,
. rs.
w- ..
e.
In Barnwell 3 because of an assertedly deficient FES and the incomplete nature of the Commission's generic .
environmental study of the use of mixed oxide fuel (GESMO), the intervenors moved-the Appeal Board to stay .
the Licensing Board hearing. .
b One deficiency in the FES, according to the inter- :
venors, wac that the statements contained in the FES ,
differed from the staff testimony at the hearing. ."
Addressing this contention, the Appeal Board declared: ,
"The Commission's regulations, however, recognize that evidence presented at a .
hearing may cause a licensing board to arrive at conclusions different from those in the FES. In that event, the FES is
- simply deemed amended pro tanto. '
10 C.F.R. 551.52(b)(3). To be sure, this provision ordinarily comes into play when -
other parties' evidence requires the board *
. to reject or modify a staff position adopted in the FES. But we have been told no reason why the staff itself must be forever frozen .
in its FES pori; ion. Nor would there be any wisdom in such a rule. To the contrary, we think the staff is obliged in the per-formance of its duties to bring to the .
attention of the Board significant new or updated information. The staff's'(and the . .
ective Commission's) truth, not to the obligation.istoob{/
printed word."2_
"Of course, in a given instance, the staff's evidence may depart so markedly .
from the positions espoused or information .
reflected in the FES as to require formal
'2],/ Allied-General Nuclear Services et al. ,,
(Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separation Facilities), ALAB-296, 2 NRC 671. J (October 30, 1975). '
24/ Id. at 680. ,
6 l . .
. .~ . . . . . . _ . _ _ . - .
3
, e,. .
redraftinC and recirculation for comment .
of the environmental statement (or at laast -
those portions which are affected by,the changes) before the licensing board gives . i any further consideration to the subjects involved. [ Citing Limerick, suora, 1 NRC ,
at 196-97] In this conr.ection, howev.er, , 6 we are not persuaded that the changes em- i bodied in the staff testimony are so sig- -
e nifica ;
here."_gg/astorequirethattobedone
^ ' ~
Lastly, we focus on St. LucieS$[ which the Pilgrim -
j Appeal Board has characterized as "an analogous situation", *
- and observed that what was "said in St. Lucie applies with ' equal vigor here".21/ While it was determined that the staff alternate site analysis had to be augmented so as to' include at least one actual site (5 NRC 1044-45) there was never entertained nor do we find even the hint .
of a suggestion that the St. Lucie FES had to be recast ~
and recirculated prior to the remanded hearings in that -
proceeding. *
~ '
A general principle can thus be distilled from the l foregoing cases. Unless the hearing record discloses a
- complete or major alteration of what was initially pro -
posed (Limerick, supra)or that the staff _ evidence departs so markedly from its position as espoused in the FES -
(Barnwell, supra), there is no need to start all over '
again, but reliance on 10 CFR 5 Sl.52(b) procedures can -
and'should be had to cure omissions or deficiencies in an FES. -
25,/ Ibid. -
l
'26/
~~~
Florida Power & Light Co. '('St. Lucie !
Unit 2) LBP-75-5, 1 NRC 101, LBP-75-5, !
'l NRC 463 (1975) reversed, ALAB-335, - l 3 NRC 830 (1976), on remand, LBP-77-27, i 5 NRC 1038, 1041-47, affirned, ALAB-435,'
6 NRC 541 (1977). -
gl/ Pilcrim, supra, ALAB-479, CCH 1 30,301.07 .
i _9 .
I
..~.-...-
__4 t -
e .
, ry,
~ Further, on our review of the cases involving FES modification' by the Commission's Licensing and Appeal Boards, we can readily join the Limerick Appeal Board in stating that our research likewise has uncovered no .
Judicial decision applying NEPA which cuts against an FES modification p'ursuant to 10 CFR S 51 52(b)(3). -
Rather, the judicial decisions which have considered such
. modification have, to the contrary, affirmed the. practice . .
under the rule. '
. . ' Earlier in this discussion, we noted:the Commission's observation in Seabrook: supra, 7 NRC at 29 n.43 to the effect that two courts of appeal have approved of that rule and its implementa ion vis-a-vis the Commission NEPAresponsibilities.2_g/ A third 29,/ can now along with the~ .
Supreme Court by virtue of its decision in the analogous
. case of Aberdeen & Rockfish R. R. Co. v. SCRAP,.422, U. S. .
. 289, 320. ,
The First Circuit's decision in NECNP, suora, in' conjunction with the decision of the Supreme Court in
, SCRAP II, supra, merit close attention. The court.in NECNP began with a recount of NEPA impact statement requirements along with the Commission's implementing -
re gulations .- It then observed that the issue raised by -
the intervenors arose because between.the time the FES -
was prepared and the time the Licensing Scard held its hearings EPA decided that the originally proposed intake structure location was not acceptable and required its -
relocation. The staff called upon the Applicant-to revise its environmental report accordingly but chose not to :
redo the FES.30/ , ,
28,/ Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC' ' '
524 F.2d 1294 n. 5, supra, and Ecolozy Action v. AEC, 492 F.2d 1001-02, supra. , ,
2_9/ .New England Coalition on Nt clear
' Pollution v. NRC f.2d CCH 1 20,092, (1st Cir. 1973T,;suora, affirming Public Service Company of '
New Hamoshire (Seabrock Station ,
Units 1 and 2) CLI-78-1; 7 NRC 1.
I 30,/ New England Coalition on Nuclear .
l Pollution v. URC, CCH i 20,092 at l . 16,556. . .
' ~
4* _em - **= -
, __4
~
~~ -
The Licensing Board'went ahead'with the hearings and evaluated the EPA location on the basis of the record before it. It then issued an initial decision. In doing' '
so, the Board relied on 10 CFR S 51 52(b)(3) . 31/ ,
The Court in, addressing the issue before it declared.: -
"We must decide whether this pro-cedure, on the facts of this case, satis-fie,d the requirement of NEPA. We ha.ve no -
. trouble finding that it did. The Supreme Court has held that the provision of NEPA
[$ 102(2)(C)] quoted above does not affect .
the time when the statement must be pre-pared; rather, it says what must be done ,
with the statement when it is prepared. -
Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. Co. v. SCRAP,
, 422 U.S. 269, 320 (1975). As the Court .
pointed out, 'the time at which-the agency '
must prepare the ' statement' is'the time at which it makes a recommendation or report
. on a proposal for federal action.' Id. i (emphasis omitted); 42 U.S.C. S 4332T2)(c). -
In that case the ICC was required to prepare "
aTstatement, at the earliest, after an oral - ;
hearing when the agency issued a decision. i Similarly, in our case, the earliest recom-mendation or report of the NRC as distin-guished from one by its staff [j2/3 was the .
t Licensing Board's initial decision. At that '
point, of course, the FES was in its final .
i form, modified by the decision, and discussed the new intake location. (Footnotes omitted)
\
J 31,/ Id. at 16,557. '
32,/ The footnote to the Court's decision . .- .
reads as follows: .
. t "12 Functionally, the staff is a party at the -
hearing. It takes its position as an adversary, and the Commission does not ~
adopt any position officially until ufter the hearing." (CCH 1 20,092 at 16,557.)
. 9 F
- A m._... . . _ _ . . _ . - _ _ . . . . _ _ - - .
e . <
. ~.- . , _
I r, - ..
1 Continuing the Court noted: , , .
o e
"The Distric't of Columbia Circuit has , *
reached a similar conclusion, upholding .
application of 10 C.F.R. 5 51.52(b)(3) to i
modify a final environmental impact state-3 ment in compliance with NEPA. Citizens For i Safe Power, Inc. v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, -
1294 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1975)"33/
( The decisions ar4 of particular significance in that they_ squar.e_10_CFR 5_51 52(b)( 3) with the letter of 5 102(2)(c) of NEPA (42 USCS 5 4332(2)(c)) as well as with .
its spirit and intent. What is more, the Supreme Court in SCRAP II, supra, 422 U. S. at 321, n.20' declared:
"To the extent to which Calvert C11res' Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 146 U. S.-
App. D. C. 33, 449 F. 2d 1109 (1971);
Greene County Planning Bd. v. FPC, 445 F. 2d 412 (CA2), Cert denied, 409 U. S. 849 (1972);
and Harlem Valley Transp6rtation Assn. v.
Stafford, 500 F. 2d 320 (CA2 1974), read the .
. requirement that the statement accompany the proposal through the existing agency review
- - processes differently, they would appear to conflict with the statute." ,.
While as pointed out in Kleppe v. Sierra Club, suora, -
427 U. S. at,406 n.15: -
"This is not to say th'ta 5 102 (2)(C) , ,
imposes no duties upon an agency prior to its making a report or recommendation on a proposal for action. The section states that prior to preparing the impact state- , .
ment the responsible official 'shall con-sult with and obtain the comments of any
.; Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to ,,
s
. ~
31/ IA .
O e
e e n ew .. em - .e