|
---|
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:ORDERS
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20197C4791998-09-10010 September 1998 Memorandum & Order (Initial Order).* Board Decided That Staff & Naesco Should Not File Responses to Sapl/Necnp Petition Until 30 Days After Board Has Ruled on Contention 4.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 980911 ML20238F8701998-09-0303 September 1998 Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Petitions to Intervene).* Board Finds Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Established Standing to Intervene.Necnp Petition to Intervene Rejected. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980904 ML20249B7771998-06-22022 June 1998 Order.* Refers to Sapl & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 980618 & 19 Petitions.Requests That Petitioners File Affidavits W/Board by Amended Petition cut-off Date of 980713.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980623 ML20249B1361998-06-18018 June 1998 Memorandum & Order (Initial Order).* Pursuant to 10CFR2.714(a)(3),Seacoast Has Right to Amend Intervention Petition Any Time Up to 15 Days Prior to Holding of First Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980619 ML20134C5291997-01-28028 January 1997 Order Modifying Order Approving Restructuring of Great Bay Power Corp ML20133P9041997-01-22022 January 1997 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Restructuring of Great Bay Power Corp by Establishment of Holding Company ML20070B0551994-05-19019 May 1994 Procedural Order 7 Re Ndfc 93-1 Nuclear Decommissioning Financing Committee ML20062H6361990-11-29029 November 1990 Order.* Extends Time in Which Commission May Review ALAB-937 & ALAB-939 to 901214,per 10CFR2.772.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 901129 ML20062H6261990-11-26026 November 1990 Order.* Grants NRC 901121 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Memoranda on ALAB-939 to 910111.Prehearing Conference Rescheduled for 910123.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 901127 ML20062F5891990-11-14014 November 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Directs All Eligible Parties Wishing to Participate in Resolution of Matters Re shelter-in-place Protective Option for Summer Beach Population to Submit Memoranda by 901207.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 901114 ML20062C2911990-10-24024 October 1990 Order.* Order Requesting That Applicants &/Or NRC Notify Appeal Board by Memo,Of Extent to Which Planned Scope of full-participation Exercise Will Take Into Account Concerns Re June 1988 Exercise.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 901025 ML20062C2021990-10-18018 October 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Affirms Result Reached by Board in LBP-89-28.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 901018 ML20059M6661990-09-28028 September 1990 Memorandum & Order Re Referred Questions.* Board Should Ensure That Any Emergency Broadcasting Sys Proposed for Use Per Condition That Steps Made Clear to Beach Population Re shelter-in-place.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900928 ML20056B1951990-08-0101 August 1990 Order.* Advises That Date Which Concludes Commission Review Time for ALAB-924 Postponed to Be Consistent W/Most Current Date on Which Commission May Review Any Decision Issued by Aslab.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900802 ML20055G8471990-07-17017 July 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Informs That Supplemental Memoranda of Applicants & Staff Addressed to Foregoing Questions Shall Be Filed & Served on or Before 900725.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 900717 ML20055G9221990-07-13013 July 1990 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Elect to Review Decision of Appeal Board in ALAB-924 Extended Until 900813. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900713 ML20055G8661990-07-0909 July 1990 Memorandum & Order.* NRC Directed to Submit Status Rept to Board W/Svc Upon Parties No Later than 900712.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900710 ML20055F5951990-07-0303 July 1990 Order.* Recipients Protective Notice of Appeal from Licensing Board 900627 Memorandum & Order in OL Proceeding Re Facility Dismissed,Per ALAB-933.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 900703 ML20055F5571990-07-0202 July 1990 Order.* Confirms 900629 Oral Directive Whereby Aslab Advised Atty General for Commonwealth of Ma,Util & NRC That Comments Re ASLB Recommendation Concerning Ref Questions Should Be Filed by 900705.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900703 ML20058K7611990-06-27027 June 1990 Memorandum & Order (Following Prehearing Conference).* Sheltering Issue Remanded by ALAB-924 Resolved & Schedule Set to Examine Advanced Life Support Patient Issue Under Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900627 ML20055D8991990-06-22022 June 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Parties Respond to Listed Questions Re Atty General of Commonwealth of Ma Appeal from ASLB 891109 Partial Initial Decision in Proceeding by 900713.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900622 ML20248J3431989-10-13013 October 1989 Order.* Appellants Before Aslab Should File & Serve Briefs on or Before 891027,applicant by 891103 & NRC by 891108 Re Issue of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Testimony.W/ Certificate of Svc.Served on 891016 ML20248J3331989-10-12012 October 1989 Memorandum & Order (Denying Intervenors Motions to Admit Low Power Testing Contentions & Bases or Reopen Record & Request for Hearing).* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891012 ML20248J3181989-10-11011 October 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Certifies to Commission Issue Whether Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Testimony Re Dose Reductions & Consequences That Will Be Under State of Nh Emergency Plan Considered Admissible.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891011 CLI-89-19, Order CLI-89-19.* Denies Applicant 890811 Application for Exemption from 10CFR50,App E,Section IV.F.1 Requirements to Conduct Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise within 1 Yr Before Issuance of License.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 8909151989-09-15015 September 1989 Order CLI-89-19.* Denies Applicant 890811 Application for Exemption from 10CFR50,App E,Section IV.F.1 Requirements to Conduct Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise within 1 Yr Before Issuance of License.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890915 ML20246J3481989-08-30030 August 1989 Order.* Directs Applicant to Submit Numerical Population Figures for Pp,Sfp & Tdp Values Used in Mathematical Model for Evacuee Load.Intervenors May File Comments by 890915 & NRC by 890920.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890830 ML20246E3081989-08-22022 August 1989 Order.* Order Confirming ALAB-920 Decision Re Commonwealth of Ma Motion for Waiver of Certain Portions of Commission Rules Concerning Establishment of Financial Qualifications. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890822 ML20248D8521989-08-0707 August 1989 Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Motion to Accept Exhibit).* Denies Motion to Accept Exhibit Re Licensing of out-of-state Ambulances.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890808 ML20248D8121989-08-0404 August 1989 Order.* Extends Time within Which Commission May Review Decision ALAB-918 to 890818.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890804 ML20247Q3361989-08-0101 August 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Dismisses Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Appeal from Board 890623 Memorandum & Order on Basis That Board 890623 Issuance Not Now Appealable.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890801 ML20247B2241989-07-11011 July 1989 Order.* Advises of 890727 Oral Argument Re Board Initial Decsion LBP-88-32 in Bethesda,Md.Name of Person Representing Party Should Be Provided by 890717.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 890712 ML20246P1921989-07-10010 July 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Requests Views on Appealability of Whether 890623 Memorandum & Order,Re Applicant Proposed Siren Sys,Is Interlocutory & Not Subj to Appeal at Present Time,By 890726.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890711 ML20246P2661989-07-0303 July 1989 Order.* Time for Commission to Review ALAB-916 Extended to 890718,per 10CFR2.772.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890706 ML20246P0141989-06-30030 June 1989 Memorandum & Order (Correction in Final Initial Decision).* Final Initial Decision Issued on 890623 Should Be Amended,As Stated to Correct A.1-3 on Pages 4 & 29.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890703 ML20245J5411989-06-23023 June 1989 Memorandum & Order Final Initial Decision.* All Genuine Issues of Fact Resolved in Favor of Applicant W/Applicable Regulations & Guidance as Applied by Board.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890626.Re-served on 890617 ML20245D4841989-06-20020 June 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Affirms ASLB Denial of Intervenors 880916 Motion to Admit Exercise Contention LBP-89-04. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890620 ML20245A7371989-06-19019 June 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Intervenors 890503 Motion to Hold Argument in State of Nh on Appeals from ASLB 881230 Partial Initial Decision.No Cause Exists for Further Visit to Plant Area.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890619 ML20245A6481989-06-16016 June 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Applicant Motion to Strike Atty General 890516 Notice of Appeal as Too Late & Dismisses Notice of Appeal on Sole Ground of Prematurety.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890616 ML20248B4911989-06-0707 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League & Atty General of Commonwealth of Ma Will Be Heard on 890712 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 890607 CLI-89-09, Order CLI-89-09.* Denies Intervenors 890522 Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-89-08 & Renewed Request for Delay. Motion Lacks Justification.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 8905241989-05-24024 May 1989 Order CLI-89-09.* Denies Intervenors 890522 Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-89-08 & Renewed Request for Delay. Motion Lacks Justification.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890524 1999-08-03
[Table view] |
Text
(
DOCKETED USNRC 18 HM 24 R2:12 LBP-88-8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORYuucntt ddhRlSSf6NV
. J-C' AMA 's ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B ARD SERVED MAR 24 my Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour In the Matter of I Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. I (Offsite Emergency Planning)
)
(Seabrook Station. )
Units 1 and 2) 1 March 23, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Protecting Information From Public Disclosure)
I. BACKGROUND On September 18, 1987 Applicants filed in this proceeding its Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC). Asserting personal privacy considerations.
Applicants deleted or "redacted" certain information concerning the identity of individuals and organizations needed to impicnent the plan.
In its memorandum and order lifting the stay of low power operations, the Commission required that the Applicants must provide to the NRC Staff and to FEMA any of
- the redacted information that the Staff and FEMA deem necessary for their review of the plan. The Commission 8803290039 OBg32}43 PDR ADOCK OhDR I G . ])5'O'
.s Li: .':
- i directed fur *.her that, p: tor to low power operation, Applicants must indicate t'*eir willingness to provide "the
' detailed informatior, idetted nece=sary by the Staff and FEMA) to the other parties to the proceeding, if necessary under appropriate protective orders from the Licensing Board." The Commission expected that the Licensing Board would fashion orders that would ". . . allow full litigation of contested issues uithout unnecesesrily violating personal privacy." public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), CLI-87-13, 26 NRC 400, 404-05 (1987).
On December 30, 1987 Applicants provided to the Staff information requested by the Staff and requested that the information be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.700 on the grounds that it contained commercial proprietary information. The Staff granted the request on February 5, 1988. During the evidentiary hearings the Massachusetts Attorney General (Mass AG) requested the information. The Applicants agreed to provide it, but only under a protective order withholding the information from the general public. The Attorney General objected to a protective order as a master of policy. Tr. 8398-8425, 8987-9004. The matter stood at an impasse until February 10, when the Massachusetts Attorney General, who is the lead intervenor on this issue, agreed to a temporary f protective order until the matter could be resolved on the
l c .
l merits. Tr.9724-29. On February 17 the Licensing Board
. issued a temporary protective order. Active parties have executed affidavits of non-disclosure where required and we understand that most of the information has been provided in accordance with the terms of the temporary protective order.
In the meantime, Rockingham County Newspapers requested the information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), which request was denied by the Staff on February 25 on the grounds that the information was proprietary, apparently under FOIA Exemption 4 as restated under Part 9 of the NRC regulations. 10 C.F.R. 9.5(4).
The Massachusetts Attorney General filed his motion and memorandum opposing the entry of a permanent protective order on February 19, to which Applicants replied on February 25, with the Staff responding on March 3.
II. DICCUSSION A. Introduction The Massachusetts Attorney General opposes a continuation of the protective order on the general grounds that one is not needed, that the Massachusetts public has a right to know who will be the responders in an emergency, and that a protective order will foreclose a full litigation of the plan by current and potential intervenors.
4 -
In response. Applicants argue that an extended protective order is needed to protect the privacy of the suppliers of services and facilities in the plan for Massachusett's communities, and that Applicants would be harmed in their commercial interests in the plan J7 the suppliers were publicly identified and subject t r.
intimidation by persons not under the control of the Licensing Board.
For its part, the NRC Staff emphasizes the Applicants' commercial right to have the information withheld from public disclosure, and would have the Board recognize the privacy rights of the suppliers.
In our rulings below, we extend the protective order through discovery to the beginning of the hearing on the plan for the Massachusetts communities. We will then reassess the need for protection. We agree with the Applicants and Staff that there is a significant probability that the suppliers' rights to privacy might be invaded absent a protective order. The Applicants have made at least a threshold showing that they have a protectible commercial or proprietary interest in the withheld information. Their initial request to the Staff for confidential treatment should not be mooted by compulsory discovery in this proceeding. Our major focus, however, is on preserving the integrity of this proceeding.
Unrestricted disclosure of the identity of the suppliers
e o.
- 5 -
prior to the evidentiary hearing will have the dangerous probability of allowing potential witnesses to be intimidated. In fact the very factual foundation of the litigation could be distorted if uncontrolled disclosure of the relevant information is authorized.
B. Authority to Issue protective Order The Commission itself recognized that a protective order might be required to avoid violating personal privacy.
Seabrook, supra, 26 NRC at 405. The Commission's general discovery rule authorizes its presiding officers to make orders required to protect ". . . a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression . . . ." 10 C.F.R.
2.740(c). The exemptions to the FOIA have been incorporated into the NRC discovery rules. Thus trade secrets and commercial financial information may be withheld from disclosure after balancing the interest of the public in disclosure and the interests of the persons urging
. non-disclosure. 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(4); 2.740(c).
Judicial officers have the inherent authority and responsibility to assure a fair hearing to the parties before it. Toward this end the NRC rules and the Administrative procedure Act empower presiding officers to regulate the course of those hearings. 5 U.S.C. 556(c)(5);
10 C.F.R. 9. 718(e).
e 1
! Further, the Commission's Licensing Boards must predicate their decisions upon a record supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. 10 C.F.R.
2.760(2)(c). See also 5 U.S.C. 556(d). Our authority to regulate the course of the proceeding therefore necessarily authorizes us to protect the foundation of the evidentiary >
record from deliberate distortion through annoyance, intimidation er embarrassment of potential witnesses or as persons involved in the subject matter of the proceeding, we explain below.
No party seriously disputes our general authority to impose orders restricting the disclosure of information.
The dispute centers on whether the intervenors' litigative needs will be compromised, whether a protective order is needed in this case, and whether any such need outweighs th7 strong public interest in conducting the proceeding ". . .
J as open as possible to full public scrutiny." Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al. (Wolf Creek, Unit 1), ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408, 417 (1976).
A corollary to our finding that the Board is authorized to restrict the public dissemination of the protected information, in face of the strong public policy favoring disclosure, is that the restriction should be no greater than needed to protect the interests entitled to protection.
Wolf Creek, Id., and at 418. Seattle Times Co. v. Rinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32; 81 L. Ed. 2d 17, 26 (1984), citing
l, Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413; 40 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1974) and other cases. We have followed this principle in considering the need for and the terms for extending the protective order.
C. Need for Protective Order As the idassachusetts Attorney General recognizes,
"[t]his is to be sure an unusual situation." Memorandum at 5. The emergency planning aspects of the Seabrook application have captured the public's attention as much as any proceeding. Even the candidates for the office of President of the United States found it appropriate to address the issue during the recent campaign in New Hampshire. The Commission itself commented that the Seabrook plant is surrounded by an "emotionally charged atmosphere" -- a fact to which the Board can attest from its own experiences during the hearings.
The Board has had an opportunity over many weeks to hear from and observe many who live near the Seabrook Station, including many who live in the Emergency Planning Zone. Most of those we have heard atrongly oppose the licensing of Seabrook, yet are civil and decorous. The Seabrook opponents by and large are as dedicated to civil order and to a disciplined society as any people anywhere.
There is, however, a proportionally small but aggressive minority of Seabrook opponents, including some
8-members of the Clamshell Alliance, who have demonstrated by civil disobedience their willingness to frustrate the licensing process by extra-legal means. They are not parties to the proceeding and are, therefore, beyond the control of the Licensing Board. If, as we fear, this group would seek to influence the licensing process by interfering with the agreements and expectations between Applicants and the suppliers in the plan for Massachusetts, there is little the Board can do except to deny them the opportunity.
There is another aspect of the emergency planning phase of the proceeding that sets it off from other administrative proceedings. In this case the Board is required to make predictive findings, i.e., there is, or there is not, reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook. 10 C.F.R. 50.47. This fact gives rise to a rare opportunity to influence the outcome of the adjudication by changing the facts upon which the prediction must be made. Our concern therefore is that some undisciplined opponents to the Seabrook Station will improperly interfere with the arrangements between Applicants and the suppliers for the purpose of influencing the hearing. This finding is unprecedented, required by the novel circumstances of this proceeding. Our reasoning should be well understood.
_9_
Stated another way, if the arrangernents between the Applicants and the suppliers were made solely for the purpose of providing emergency services and facilities in the Massachusetts communities, without. regard to the licensing process, we would have no concern that the arrangements would be tampered with -- nor any authority over the matter. It is only because the arrangements have a separate and special use in support of the license application that our cognizance over them and the need for protection arises.
The intervenors argue the matter from a slightly different direction. They state that, if in fact the community influences suppliers to abbrogate their arrangements with Applicants, that is simply a fact of life which must be accounted far when considering whether adequate protective measures can and will be taken. And, in any event, the argument goes, sooner or later the information must be produced. The Board, however, does not accept this concept of a self-fulfilling, circular chain of events. No one seriously suggests that a rational community would oppress the potential sup, liers of emergency services solely because they would serve in an actual radiological emergency. The only reason for pressuring the potential suppliers would be to prevent their arrangements with the Applicants from being used in the licensing proceeding. If
10 -
the Board can interrupt the cycle by an appropriate protective order, it is our responsibility to do so.
D. personal privacy Considerations The Massachusetts Attorney General points to the decision in Houston Power and Lighting Company (Allens Creek, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 400 (1979), for the proposition that privacy protection to be afforded the suppliers in this proceeding was not granted in the similar Allens Creek case. There, the National Lawyers Guild sought to protect the identity of its intervening members to spare them harassment because of their asserted anti-nuclear views. The Appeal Board, drawing a distinction between the emotional climate surrounding the civil rights movement (where privacy needed protection) and the controversy attendant to issues of nuclear power, held that the identity of the Guild members had not been shown to require protection solely because of their views. Id. at 399, 400.
The case before us is quite different. As noted above, the Board through its own observations has determined that there are those who might harass the suppliers if it would suit their purposes, and that they might perceive a rational incentive for such harassment.
As argued by the Mass AG, there may be some doubt whether the privacy rights to which the suppliers might be entitled has a foundation in the exemptions to the Freedom
- 11 -
of Information Act. The respective provision of the NRC rules, Section 2.790(a)(6), pertains to medical, personnel, and similar files relating to the individual personal life.
But, as noted above, our discovery rules do not end with Section 2.790. The general NRC discovery rule on protective orders, Section 2.740(c), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), upon which the NRC rule was modeled, clearly permit protection from annoyance and oppression independently of FOIA exemptions.
The Attorney General asserts his right to communicate the protected information to the general public. Both the Attorney General and Applicants have directed the Board's attention to Seattle Times Co. v. Rinehart, supra, 467 U.S.
20, which is, indeed, instructive on that point. There the 1 Court upheld a Rule 26(c) privacy-type State protective order designed to prevent harassment of members of a controversial religious organization. The Court found.that pre-trial discovery limitations on the dissemination of such information does not offend the First Amendment. Thus the Attorney General, gathering the information about the suppliers solely through the discovery authority given for this proceeding, is reasonably restrained from disseminating that information. He would not have the information but for the needs of this litigation and he has no First Amendment rights to information gathered only through that means. Id.
at 32.
- 12 -
It should be noted that the protective order does not restrain the dissemination of identical information obtained through independent means. Id. at 34.
The Board therefore concludes that the suppliers of services and facilities in the plan for Massachusetts communities have an independent right to have their arrangements with the Applicants held private. This right of privacy is a separate and adequate basis ii. itself to extend the protective order. We also hold that the Applicants have sufficient privity with the suppliers to assert their privacy rights for them. As a practical matter the suppliers cannot raise privacy claims on their own.
Only Applicants can do this effectively. United States v.
Lasco Industries. Div. of phillips Indus., 531 F. Supp. 256, 263 (N.D. Tex. 1981). (Employer may assert right of employee to privacy in medical records against Federal subpoena.)
E. Applicants' Commercial Interests It is obvious that the Applicants have a substantial commercial interest in the arrangements with the suppliers.
Not only has money been expended in developing the arrangements, as the Staff points out, but the secondary damages attendant to any disruption of the arrangements through tortious interference would be very great in terms l
l 1
- - ' - - -- ~- -. , - . _ _ _ _ . , _ .
of delay, extra litigative costs, or perhaps the outright denial of a commercially valuable license to which Applicants might be entitled.
The Commission's rules authorize the non-disclosure of
"[t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(4). This protection, as we have noted, has its genesis in the Freedom of Information Act, Exemption 4. 552 U.S.C. (b)4. Traditionally the type of information protected by Exemption 4 has been confidential commercial or financial information the disclosure of which would "cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained."
Nationa_1 parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 769-70 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ("National Parks I").
Although the Applicants do not allege a specific competitive injury from the disclosure of the identity of the suppliers, and there in no direct competitive significance to the information, any serious economic damage would weaken a utility's competitive position vis-a-vis other fuels.
Furthermore, the economic trend is for increased competition among central-station electricity generators. The Board believes that Applicants have a real competitive interest in l the commercial information. In addition, as the NRC Staff I
argues, substantial economic harm to the information's owner l
l may be protected under Exemption 4 even where no l
l
t 14 -
competitive position is at risk. Staff response at 7, l citing generally, 9 to 5 Organization for Women Office Workers v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 721 F.2d 1 (First Cir. 1983). Finally, Exemption 4 is not by its terms limited to considerations of competitive harm.
F. Intervenoes' Due process Rights The Attorney General argues that he will be denied a "full litigation" of the plan for Massachusetts communities under a protective order because he would be denied access to hundreds of third party sources of information about the suppliers. Memorandum at 14-15. There is no need to dwell on this point. We are simply not moved by the argument and can find no need for any party to consult in the :ommunity at large in its discovery efforts.
The protective order is very narrow. It pe rin i t s access to the information by the attorneys, secretaries, and investigators of the office of Attorney General. It is similarly flexible with respect to other intervenors. The intervenors are permitted to conduct normal discovery-type interviews with the suppliers. In the case of business firms, they are permitted to contact the cognizant employees. If any intervenor, in a particular situation comes to a dead-end because it may not contact, say, a former employee without violating the protective order, it
i can first seek an exception from the Applicants, then from the Licensing Board.
The Attorney General also makes a due-process argument on behalf of unnamed potential intervenors. This argument is even less convincing than the argument on the AG's own behalf, even assuming that he has standing to raise the matter. Potential intervenors have no discovery rights.
Discovery is available only to parties to a proceeding.
10 C.F.R. 2.740(a), (b). Memorandum at 12-13.
F. Other Withheld Information Also redacted from the plan for the Massachusetts communities was a category of information in Appendix H, said to be the names and phone numbers of hundreds of members of the New Hampshire Yankee offsite response organization. The Staf f did not request this information.
Therefore the Applicants have not provided it to the intervenors under the temporary protective order. The Attorney General demands the Appendix H information. He argues that the Commission, in CLI-87-13, intended for the intervenors to have the entire plan for the Massachusetts communities. Applicants, looking at the plain language of CLI-87-13 note, that under that order they need only indicate their willingness to give to the other parties the detailed information requested by the Staff and FEMA. Id.,
26 NRC at 405.
i 16 -
Neither the Applicants nor the Massachusetts Attorney General has interpreted the Commission's order correctly.
The Attorney General has no basis for his opinion that the Commission intended that the entire plan be provided to the intervenors. The language is clear enough on that point.
Ld.
On the other hand, Applicants misread CLI-87-13 as stating that they are obliged to provide the intervenors with only the information requested by the Staff. Thr.t construction would imply that intervenors' discovery rights are controlled by the requests of the Staff or perhaps FEMA.
The Commission was simply explaining to the Applicants that, at a minimum and without undue delay, the intervenors should have whatever information the Staff and FEMA use to perform their evaluations. The Commission had no intention of restructuring tne discovery rules in that respect. The standard for discovery remains as always: "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding
( . . . ." 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1). The information contained i
in Appendix H is relevant to the proceeding. The question to be decided is whether the information is privileged or should otherwise be protected in accordance with general discovery principles. This matter was discussed during the telephone conference call of March 21. Tr. 9831-40. The foregoing interpretation of CLI-87-13 was explained to the i
1
e I e, parties. While counsel for Applicants points out that none of the Appendix H information would be discoverable until the contentions are filed, to move the matter along, Applicants are willing to produce the information forthwith under suitable protection. E.g., Tr. 9838 (Dignan).
Accordingly, the Board directs that the Appendix H information be provided under the protective order extended today. However we authorize the Applicants to redact home phone numbers because they are irrelevant to the issues, private, and would serve no discovery purpose. We also authorize the Applicants to redact the emergency phone numbers because there is no apparent discovery purpose for them and because the potential damage in the inadvertent release of the emergency numbers would outweigh any benefit from producing them.
II. ORDER The protective order approved on February 17, 1987 is extended until the beginning of the evidentiary hearing on the Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts Communities, or until further order of the Board. Prior to the beginning of the evidentiary hearing. Applicants may petition for further relief. Prefiled testimony containing protected information shall be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with
l l ,
18 -
the terms of the order. To the extent possible, protected information shall be separated from other portions of prefiled testimony.
THE ATOMIC FETY AND LICENSING BOARD w 94 tave A Line M ger, Jr.
A INISTRATIVE JUDGE Jewry Haf bour ADMI STRATIVE JUDGE M
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland March 23, 1988
. . _ . . _ __ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _. . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . - - . _ -_