|
---|
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] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210S5641999-08-13013 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20236W0931998-07-30030 July 1998 Reply to Staff & Naesco Objections to Joinder of Necnp & to Naesco Objection to Standing.* Advises That Jointer Issue Involves Only Question of How Pleadings May Be Captioned. W/Certificate of Svc ML20236U4221998-07-27027 July 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Supplemental Answer Standing Issues.* Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Sapl & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236T5201998-07-27027 July 1998 NRC Staff Response to 980709 Submittal by Seacoast Anti- Pollution League & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp).* Board Should Deny Intervention by Necnp. Staff Does Not Contest Sapl Standing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236J1111998-07-0202 July 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Supplemental Petition for Hearing.* Util Will Respond to Any Further Petitions on Schedule Directed by Licensing Board Memorandum & Order of 980618.W/Certificate of Svc ML20249B9151998-06-24024 June 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) 980605 Request for Hearing & to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 980618 Request for Intervention.* Board Should Not Grant Sapl 980605 Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20249B7631998-06-18018 June 1998 Supplemental & Amended Petition for Institution of Proceeding & for Intervention Pursuant to 10CFR2.714 on Behalf of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League & New England Coalition on Nuclear Power.* ML20249A9501998-06-12012 June 1998 Supplemental Petition of Great Bay Power Corp for Determination of Reasonable Assurance of Decommissioning Funding ML20199K3861998-01-29029 January 1998 Petition for Determination That Great Bay Power Corp'S Acceleration of Decommissioning Trust Fund Payments Would Provide Reasonable Asurance of Decommissioning Funding Or,In Alternative,Would Merit Permanent Exemption ML20217P7781997-12-18018 December 1997 Petition to Suspend Operating License Until Root Cause Analysis of Leaks in Piping in Train B of RHR Sys Conducted, Per 10CFR2.206 ML20140B9601997-06-0404 June 1997 Suppl to Great Bay Power Corp Petition for Partial Reconsideration of Exemption Order to Submit Requested Cost Data & to Request,In Alternate,Further Exemption ML20135A1051997-02-21021 February 1997 Petition of Great Bay Power Corp for Partial Reconsideration of Exemption Order.* Seeks Reconsideration of Staff'S Preliminary Finding That Great Bay Is Not Electric Utility as Defined by NRC in 10CFR50.2 ML20094N4021992-03-27027 March 1992 App to Appeal of Ofc of Consumer Advocate (Nuclear Decommissioning Finance Committee) Appeal by Petition Per Rsa 541 & Rule 10 ML20076D1281991-07-17017 July 1991 Licensee Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Appeal Should Be Dismissed Based on Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20073E1301991-04-22022 April 1991 Opposition of Ma Atty General & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Board Should Reopen Record,Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues ML20070V3311991-03-29029 March 1991 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Record Clarification Directive in ALAB-939.* Licensee Request That Motion Be Moved on Grounds That Issues Herein Identified Became Moot & Thus Resolved.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070V4061991-03-25025 March 1991 Massachusetts Atty General Response to Appeal Board 910311 Order.* License Should Be Vacated Until There Is Evidence of Adequate Protective Measure for Special Needs Population. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076N0831991-03-21021 March 1991 Massachusetts Atty General Response to Appeal Board 910308 Order.* Opposes Licensing Board Issuance of Full Power OL Based on Reliance of Adequacy of Plan.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076N1861991-03-19019 March 1991 Intervenors Reply to NRC Staff & Licensee Responses to 910222 Appeal Board Order.* NRC & Licensee Should File Appropriate Motions & Supply Requisite Evidentiary Basis That Will Allow Board to Make Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070M5151991-03-18018 March 1991 Licensee Response to Appeal Board 910308 Order.* Listed Issues Currently Being Appealed Should Be Dismissed as Moot. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076N0671991-03-15015 March 1991 Licensee Response to Appeal Board 910311 Order.* Controversy Re Special Needs Survey Resolved.Next Survey Will Be Designed by Person Selected by State of Ma & Licensee Will Pay Costs.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070M3781991-03-11011 March 1991 Licensee Response to 910222 Appeal Board Order.* Response Opposing Suspending or Otherwise Affecting OL for Plant Re Offsite Emergency Plan That Has Been Twice Exercised W/No Weakness Identified.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20070M2101991-03-11011 March 1991 Reply to Appeal Board 910222 Order.* Response Opposes ALAB-918 Issues Re Onsite Exercise Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20029B6061991-02-28028 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General to Appeal Board 910222 Order.* Questionable Whether Eight Issues Resolved.To Dismiss Issues Would Be Wrong on Procedural Grounds & Moot on Substantive Grounds.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070E7741991-02-25025 February 1991 Opposition to Licensee Motion to Dismiss Appeal of LPB-89-38.* Believes Board Should Not Dismiss Intervenors Appeal Because There Was No Hearing on Rejected Contentions. Board Should Deny Licensee Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H0831991-02-12012 February 1991 Licensee Motion to Dismiss Appeal of LBP-89-38.* Appeal Should Be Dismissed Either as Moot or on Grounds That as Matter of Law,Board Correct in Denying Hearing W/Respect to Contentions at Issue.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H0021991-02-0808 February 1991 Licensee Response to Appeal Board Order of 910204.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C5081991-02-0101 February 1991 Ma Atty General Response to Appeal Board Dtd 910122.* Identifies Two Issues That Potentially May Be Resolved. State Will Continue to Investigate Facts Re post-hearing Events That May Effect Pending Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML20029A0451991-01-28028 January 1991 Licensee Suggestion for Certified Question.* Draft Certified Question for Appeal Board Encl.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20029A0431991-01-28028 January 1991 Licensee Response to 910124 Memorandum & Order.* Common Ref Document Derived from Copying Respective Portions of Emergency Response Plan & Associated Documents Provided.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20070U4811991-01-24024 January 1991 Motion Requesting Limited Oral Argument Before Commission of City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Dept New Hampshire Electric Cooperative Mact Towns ML20029A0091991-01-24024 January 1991 Response to Appeal Board 910111 Order.* Atty General Will Continue Ad Intervenor in Facility Licensing Proceeding. Changes to Emergency Planning for Facility Forthcoming. W/Certificate of Svc ML20029A0121991-01-24024 January 1991 Motion for Substitution of Party.* Atty General s Harshbarger Moves That Secretary of NRC Enter Order Substituting Him in Place Jm Shannon as Intervenor to Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-08-03
[Table view] |
Text
^
CDCKETED FILED: February 17, 1984' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.TNISSION rl>3 21 pj2:14 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD --
In the matter of:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL 50-444 OL NEW liAMPSHIRE, et al (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
SAPL APPEAL OF DENIAL OF hDTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION FOR SEABROOK UNIT 2 By Order of January 13, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinaf ter "ASLB") denied the Seacoas t Ant i-Pellut ion League (hereinafter "SAPL"), Motion to Dismiss the operating license application for Seabrook Unit 2.
The appeal f rom the denial of the Motion to Dismiss is ripe and should be allowed, under 10 C.F.R. Q2.718(i) . This Board's authori ty to hear this appeal is discretionary, and should be exercised where "the action (complained of) would effect the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner." In re: Sumner Genera t ing Station, 14 NRC 1140 (1981).
SAPL submits that the issue of substantial delay in the construction of Unit 2 has a pervasive impact on the ability of the Board to conduct a f air hearing. The issue of completeness is central to the ability of intervenors to file timely contentions based on health and safety issues concerning vital safety systems yet to be installed in Unit 2. Adjudication of these issues , while they exist solely on paper, violates the Commission's duty to ensure 8402220110 840217 "
PDR 0 ADOCK 05000443 PDR
@@3
I w
. B.
construction in compliance with the regulations, and subject to L
public participation through the hearing process.
" Interlocutory appeals are not favored in Commission 5 proceedings any more than in judicial practice. Whether review should be undertaken on certification pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.718(l)...before the end of the case turns on whether a failure to address the issue would seriously harm the public interest, result in unusual delay or i expense, or affect the basic structure in the proceeding in some pervasive or unusual manner." Consumer's Power Company, 13 NRC 96 (1981). l The Board's denial of SAPL's Motion revolves around the attempted distinction between the Commission's mandate to find "substantially complete" construction prior to issuance of an operating license, under 10 C.F.R. 650.57(a)(1), and the Board's duty to conduct ,
i proceedings culminating in the authorization of issuance to the i l!
Commission. !
SAPL asserts that this distinction is unsound and contrary to the Commission's own policy as stated in Duke Power Company, et al, 17 NRC 282 (1983).
" . . . the Commi ss ion's poli cy of comple t i ng li censi ng ahead of construction, consistent with a fair hearing, necessarily assumes that a f airly firm completion date is projected well in advance."
The Board cannot continue the operating license proceedings at this point in time, where no completion date exists, and comport with the Intervenors or the public's right to a fair hearing.
"In order to assure meaning!ul public participation in the adjudicatory process in doth construction permit and operating license proceedings, an Intervenor must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine a witness on matters which have been placed in controversy by any of 3 the parties..." Nor t her n S t at es Power Company , 8 AEC 8 57, 868, (1974), affirmed, 1 NRC 1, (1975).
The Board is required to make findings on the matters placed in controversy, including "whether there is reasonable assurance
- _ - - - - _ - . - . _ . _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - _ . _ n
that construction of the f acility will be substantially completed on a timely basis, in conformity with the construction permit and the Application, as amended, the provisions of the Act , and the rules &
regulations of the Commission." 10 C.F .R. Part 2, App. A, VIII, H8(G)(1).
Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C.A. 02001 et seq.)
sets forth three conditions, in addition to completion of construction, which must be met prior to issuance of an operating
. license.
"(1) Filing of any additional information necessary to bring the cpplication up to date--information which will
- necessarily in this case include detailed safety data concerning the final design of petitioner's reactor; (2) a finding that the reactor will operate in accordance with the Act and regulations, i.e. that the safety and health of the public will be adequately protected and with the construction permit itself, which is expressly conditioned upon a full investigation and finding of safety before operation is permitted; and (3) the absence of any good cause why the granting of a license to operate would not be in accordance with the Act--e.g. a showing by respondent unions, who will have full rights to appear and contest the issuance of an operating license, that the reactor may not be reasonably safe." Power Reactor Development Corp.
- v. International U., etc.,367 U.W. 413 at 1537, 81 S. Ct.
1529 (1961) (emphasis supplied)
SAPL asser t s that it will not be granted full rights to appear and contest these issues relative to the construction and operation of Unit 2, because construction has been effectively suspended on Unit 2. The ASLB is required under 10 C.F.R. 2.760(c) to render an initial decision with respect to authorizing an operating license, i
" based on the whole record, and supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence." It is SAPL's contention that the record cannot be whole if issues pertinent to the construction of Unit 2 f
1
)
cannot be li t igated.1 The distinction must be made between proposed end actual construction, and must apply to both units as discrete construction projects, accomplished at dif f erent times , by dif f erent smployees, under different weather and environmental conditions, eith components of different age and possibly even design,, given the rapid changes in technology. To close hearings as Unit 1 is issued an operating license, while Unit 2 is still indefinitely postponed and not substantially complete, is to ignore the right of SAPL and the public to assure continued compliance with the law.
One Licensing Board has recognized the reality of delay in construction of a second unit as eliminating the need to proceed with an operating license application. In Illinois Power Co., et al, 14 NRC 10 3 5 ( 19 81) , the Board granted an applicant's request for severance and stay of the operating license proceeding for a second unit which would not be completed until 12 years after the first unit. Citing 10 C.F.R. {50.57(a) the Board supported the notion that an operating license proceeding may be postponed when the completion date is distant. It certainly makes no sense to conduct a tandem operating license proceeding when one unit is years from completion; it makes even less sense when a unit is indefinitely postponed. And when a unit is both suspended and has no completion
- date, it is a fortiori that proceedings for an operating license l
should not now proceed.
- 1. Findings based on Unit I cannot be imputed to Unit 2; to do so would be tantamount to guaranteeing an operating license for Unit 2 without regard for the two-step process mandated by the Act to protect the health and safety of the public.
I t
The ASLB should have considered the impact of the Applicant's abandonment of a completion date for Unit 2 on these proceedings.
Although the Board is not charged with compiling a record, it is responsible for assuring the sufficiency of the record upon which .
cn initial decision is made. See Union of Con. Scientists v. Atomic E.C.,.449 F.2d 1069, 163 U.S. App., D.C. 64 (1974). Sufficiency of the record can only be accomplished through a f air hearing to expose the record to adversarial proceedings in which all parties can participate fully. SAPL contends that to continue operating license proceedings on Unit 2, while it remains indefinitely postponed, and substantially incomplete, is to develop a record based on assumptions ,
rather than facts, to support a decision to authorize issuance of an operating license. It is contrary to the intention of the Act and the public interest to " assume" that Unit 2 will be completed in compliance with regulations.
The importance of a full and fair hearing at the operating license stage is evident, since the effect of the Board's initial decision is to seriously restrict further input of the part.ies. The parties are allowed ten days to submit "brief comments" to the Commission contesting the immediate effectiveness of the Bo'ard's decision [10 C.F.R. 62.764(f)(2)]." ilowever, the Commission may dispense nith comments by so advising the parties." M. At the close of operating license proceedings, the Board will deliver its recommendat ion to the Commission; SAPL would then have ten days to challenge the record. Unit 2 will not be substantially complete at the time a decision will be mace regarding Unit 1. Unless the proceedings are then severed, there will be no opportunity for SAPL
to effectively intervene wi th concerns relative to Unit 2. The result of a continued tandem proceeding is to authorize issuance of an operating Ilcense for Unit 2 at a point in time when it cannot be challenged, because it is not constructed. Theoretically, this author izat ion would lie dormant for years until the Commission determines that construction is substantially completed. In the interim, operating license proceedings have concluded, and construction of Unit 2 proceeds free of the ongoing supervision provided by operating license proceedings. Therefore, it follows that the application for an operating license for Unit 2 is premature and should be dismissed.
In anticipation of the Board's denial of its Motion to Dismiss the operating license application f or Unit 2, SAPL submitted a late-filed contention for admission. Again, the Board skirted the issue of there being g completion date for Unit 2 and the merits of SAPL's contention, relying on its discretionary powers over procedural matters to deny the contention. That decision, too, was clearly erroneous.
This Appeal is. ripe. The issus will be moot once an initial decision is rendered by the ASLB, having denied SAPL its right to fully participate in operating license hearings on Unit 2. The ASLB has the authority to consider " changed circumstances" or " newly discovered evidence" which arise in the context of operating license proceedings. See So. Cal. Edison, 17 NRC 346, (1983), in which issues pertinent at construction permit stage could be reviewed at operating license stage in light of changed circumstances.
A completion date is one requirement for a construction permit ,
and the operating license proceeding is conducted on the premise that construction will be completed on a timely basis. The applicant's abandonment of a completion date for Unit 2 is, therefor, a proper issue to be placed in controversy at this time. SAPL asserts that the Board abused its discretion in falling to consider the merits .
of the contention, and in balancing the f actors to be considered in a late filed contention.
Late Filed Contention Criteria (1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
The Board mentioned that this contention was filed two years into the proceedings (Order of January 13,1984, p.10) whi ch totally
-ignores the fact that there was a change in circumstances, brought on by the Applicant , that was not present two years ago, it is the Applicant's duty to inform the Board of changes in circumstances during the pendency of its application. See Duke Power Co., 1 NRC 626, (1975). This, however, the applicant did not do, and SAPL should not be required to act before it was clear the Applicant would not fu1fi11 its obligation under 10 C.F.R. ISO.71 2 The Applicant
- 2. 10 C.F.R. 50.71 maintenance of records , making repor t s.
(a)...each holder of a construction permit shall maintain such record and make such reports, in connect ion wi t h the licensed activity, as may be required by the condi tions of the license or permit or by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission in ef fectuating the purposes of the Act, including 6105...The applicant is clearly required to furnish a completion date, on its application; see 10 C.F.R. 50.30
("the application shall state...the t ime when the f acili ty is expected to be ready f or operat ion") and 10 C.F.R. 50.33(h) ("If the applicant proposes to construct...a production of utilization facility, the application shall state the earliest and latest dates for completion
.of the const ruct ion.") (Emphasis added) It follows that the applicant is obligedinto notify the commission of a change in information required its applicaton. Presumably the requirement for a completion date is not arbitrary or irrelevant, but is rather
did not formally abandon its completion date for Unit 2 until September 9, 1983. At this time a petition for intervention had been filed by Mr. Doherty, addressing the Unit 2 operating license application.
A late-filed contention by SAPL would not be necessary if Mr. Doherty were permitted to intervene. When Mr. Doher ty's pet i t ion was denied ,
it became apparent to SAPL that the Board was not addressing the merits of the issue of Unit 2 completion date. SAPL's contention was filed less than one month from the date of denial.
SAPL urges the Appeal Board to distinguish this case from Mississippi Power and Light, 16 NRC 17 25 ( 19 83 ) in which a conention was filed 4 years into an u_ncontested operating license proceeding.
In the instant case, SAPL asserts that the 3 month period between formal abandonment of Unit 2 completion date and SAPL's late-filed contention, was reasonable, for good cause, and in the public interest of safety, which is the paramount consideration in all proceedings, (see Power Reactor Development Co. v. International V., e t c . , 81 S .
Ct. 1529, (1961). The Board abused its discreton in weighing this factor against SAPL and thereby invoking the " compelling showing" standard of Mississippi Power and Light, supra, to be applied to the four remaining criteria.
Since it is the Applicant's duty to inform the ASLB of its changed circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect SAPL to present as detailed a contention as would be possible following proper discovery. In spite of its obvious disadvantage, with respect to the availability of information regarding a Unit 2 completion (cont.)
connected to ef f ectuating the purposes of the Act ; a completion date is, therefore, an integral consideration in the proceedings.
schedule, SAPL nevertheless outlines with as much particularity as possible, its strategy for litigating this contention.
(11) The availability of other means whereby the Petitioner's interest will be protected.
1 The Board erred in concluding that the contention was j i
unreasonably late-filed, which is irrelevant to this f actor regarding SAPL's interests. Late-filed contentions may not be denied solely 1
on the basis of their lateness. The consequence of a late-filed
- contention, based ~on new and changed information, not in SAPL's control, 'should not be to deprive SAPL the opportunity to protect its interests.
SAPL's interest in construction of Unit 2 in compliance with NRC regulations is not protected while operating license proceedings on Unit 2 coninue. To require that SAPL await an initial decision flies in the f ace of the purpose and policy of the two-step licensing process in which compliance issues are given a fair hearing prior to the issuance of a license. Once an initial decision is rendered, SAPL would have 10 days to appeal to the Commi ssion; however , i f U. i t 2 is not "substantially complete" prior to the Board's authorization, it is unlikely that SAPL would have nad an opportunity to discover, document, and support by affidavit, serious issues involving as yet unconstructed systems in Unit 2. Considering the lag between scheduled completion of Units 1 and 2, unless the proceedings are dismissed (or in the alternative, severed and stayed) for Unit 2, an initial decision would be made years before Unit 2 was substantially comptete.
f
_g_
The Board failed to respond to the merits of SAPL's argument in f avor of f actor (ii), which resulted in an erroneous deicsion to weigh this factor against SAPL.
(iii) The Extent to which SAPL's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
SAPL clearly articulated its intention to support its contention as required, in the manner appropriate to these proceedings.
The burden of proof is on the Applicant to demonstrate compliance
,with regulations when challenged by intervenors (10 C.F.R. 2.732).
Therefore SAPL would likely cross-examine the Applicant's expert witness and would necessarily await the Applicant 's response to its contention, so as to determine a strategy for litigation of the contention in its final form. The Bocrd's requirment f or anticipatory specificity is unwarranted and constitutes an abuse of its discretion in considering this factor. It is readily apparent that the substantial delay of Unit 2 has the potential to drastically alter the ability to proceed with meaningful hearings on the operating license application. Therefore, the contention surely introduces ;
an issue which has only recently materialized and which thould become the focus of the proceedings relative to Unit 2.
(iv) The extent to which the Petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. This factor was correctly weighed in favor of SAPL.
(v) The extent to which the pet i t ioner 's par ticipat ion will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
The Board erred in finding a likelihood of delay, as these hearings are still underway, with no hearing date yet set. Thus the
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - )
~
cetermination of a completion date in and of itself should not involve any delay. Litigation of the issue of the importance of a completion date vis a vis saf ety issues might involve more time; however , since completion of Unit 2 is hardly imminent, adverse effects of a minor delay are insignificant in relation to public concern for safety.3 CONCLUSION This issue did not exist at the start of these proceedings, and the Board has flagrantly ignored the " changed circumstances" in dereliction of its duty to represent public safety interests.
It i s. illogical to dismiss this issue, with the assertion that Units 1 and 2 proceedings may be combined-in spite of an expected lag of as~much as ten years between completion dates. Construction in compliance wi th the regulations cannot be imputed from Unit 1 to Unit 2. Potential areas of concern (e.g. protracted construction and design changes) are highly probable in light of rapid changes in technology and may not be ignore,d.
Regarding the need to separate the operating license hearing procedures for Units 1 and 2, this Board in upholding deni~al of the Doherty Petition,. incorrect ly analogi zed SAPL's Flot ion to Dismiss the Unit 2 operating license application to a request for rulemaking requiring single unit applications in every case. The Commission's denial of a petition for rulemaking (47 Fed. Reg. 46524, 1982) addressed mandatory separate proceedings for all operating licenses.
However, the Commission stated-that " existing regulations permit a separate hearing be held on~a single reactor unit in any case in
- 3. It is ironic for SAPL to be denied its.right to litigate the issue of Unit.11 ripeness for adjudication on the basis of delay, when the issue itself arises f rom the Applicants' delay of the whole project.
' ein ' u ' 'suui r r u
.. .. .. i
e \
which the Commission finds that a hearing is required in the public interest" (emphasis added). The Commission further noted:
"The operating license hearing is limited instead to examining substantial changes or conditions which have occurred since the issuance of the construction permit and I' issues which were deferred to consideration at the operating license stage." 47 Fed. Reg. 46526
{
SAPL asserts that the Board did not acknowledge or examine signi ficant changes having recently occurred, which have a pervasive impact on the ability to assess compliance with construction requirements. This issue is necessarily deferred to the operating license state because it cannot be accomplished prior to substantial !
completion of construction. The Commission has both the authority and the duty to assure a fair hearing on the safe construction of 1
each Unit. Thi s requi res SAPL's Mot ion to Di smi ss be granted , or in !
1 the alternative, that its late filed contention be allowed.
i Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its attorneys, BACKUS, SHEA & MEYER i
Ry flotWr t A. BackUs
~
116 Lowell St., Box 516 !
Manchester, N.H. 03105 j Tel: (603) 668-7272 '
February 17, 1984 3
- g. , ..
~ctag g
. : q:-
'84 FEB 21 Pl2:14 UiIE, :L.c.:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [fy;E*-
DATED: February 17, 1984 I, Robert A. Backus, hereby certfy that I have mailed to the 6ttached list of people, first-class, postage prepaid a copy of the enclosed. If served by Federal Express or Express Mail it is so indicated by
AW A~
,RO BERT A. B A C K US " "
t I
t
--,_n , , , , - . .n - , , . , , , ,a--.-,,--,,..,---.r---,----n.--n ,, , - ,n,. ,,,
\
Helen Hoyt, mm. Dr. D!meth A. Luebke Admin. Judge -Atomic Safety Admin. Judge-Atomic Safety
- & Lic. Board - U.S. NRC & Lic. Board- U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. AG Acknin, Judge.-Atunic Safety One Ashburton Place
& Lic. Board - U.S. hTC 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Roy P. lessy,Jr. , Esq. Wil]iam S. Jordan, II, Esq.
Office of Exec. Legal Dir. Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
U.S. NRC 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Suite 50G Washington, DC 2000G Phillip Ahmns, Esq. 'Ihomas G. Dignan , Esq.
Asst. Atty. General Ropes and Gray State House, Station ;;6 225 Franklin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Boston, MA 02110 Brian Cassidy DOCKETII;G AND SEFTICE SEC.
Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. Agcy. Office of the Secretary Region I U. S. hTIC J. W. McConmck P001 Washington. IX' 20555 Boston, MA 02109 marles Czurs, Esq.
2S Maplewood Ave. Dana N s h Attorney Cen. Office P.O. Box 3G6 State of her lla.gshire
- Portstrouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03311 Jane Lbughty Field Dimetor - SAPL 5 Market Street Portsnouth, NH . 03801
-.,,-v. -.
, , ,.,e, --y ,ey,- .,.e- -
y , - -..e