|
---|
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
- - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
January 14, 1988 EO UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00fpN{C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - . _ - , _
18 JM 26 P2:24
)
In the Matter of ) ((C fi f;hif ,5[- '
) fi;/.h '~
Public Service Company of )
New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1
) 50-444 OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) ONSITE EMERGENCY
) PLANNING & TECHNICAL
_) ISSUES NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S REPLY TO APPLICANTS' AND NRC STAFF'S BRIEFS REGARDING LOW POWER OPERATIONS I. Introduction Intervenor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
("NECNP") hereby requests leave to file a reply to Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Low Power Operation, and the NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Order of November 27, 1987, pursuant to its authority under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c).
II. NECNP Should be Permitted An Opportunity To Present Argu-ments As to Why the Legal Standard Urged by Applicants and the Staff for Authorizina Low Power Operations Is Imoroner In accordance with the Licensing Board's November 27, 1987 Order, NECNP's Janaury 4, 1988 brief regarding low power opera-tions addressed the legal standard which should govern a determination regarding the appropriateness of low power opera-tions prior to the resolution of NECNP's three, unresolved con-tentions.1 However, the briefs of the Applicants and the NRC 1 NECNP Contention I.V, regarding in-service inspection of steam
-. _ _ _ __ 0001270311 880114 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR
Staff argue that low power authorization is appropriate because NECNP's contentions are without merit, and that Applicants do, in fact, satisfy the General Design Criteria that are the subject of NECNP's as-yet unresolved contentions.2 In effect, they have attempted to change this stage of the proceedings from one in which the Board will consider the appropriateness of low power authorization in light of the remanded contentions (a legal show-ing), into one in which summary disposition will be decided on the merits of NECNP contentions (a factual showing). NECNP must be given an opportunity to explain why it is impermissible for the Board to authorize low power operations based on facts and allegations as to the merit, or lack of merit, of NECNP's remanded contentions, where discovery on these contentions is barely underway, much less completed.3 (continued) generator tubing; NECNP Contention IV, regarding the adequacy of Applicants' program to monitor and prevent biofouling by acquatic organisms and debris; and NECNP Contention I.B.2, regarding environmental qualification of the RG58 coaxial cable.
2 Both Applicants and the Staff substantially devote their briefs to the presentation of allegations of fact and opinion, drawing from expert affidavits appended to the briefs, which support the view that NECNP's two, remanded contentions do not l
raise significant safety issues, and that Applicants' do, in fact, satisfy the NRC safety requirements contained in the General Design Criteria that are the subject of NECNP's still-unresolved contentions.
3 NECNP has not yet received the documents requested from i Applicants in its first set of interrogatories, and has not l yet received any response to NECNP's Second Set of Inter-rogatories to Applicants on Contantion I.V, or to NECNP's Sec-l ond Set of Interrogatories to the Staff on Contention I.V and l
l
3 -
To authorize low power operations on the basis of summary disposition-type arguments, without permitting NECNP an opportunity to reply, would be manifestly unfair to NECNP. Fun-damental to administrative proceedings and notions of due process is the concept that an agency must give interested parties the opportunity for "the submission and consideration of . . . argu-ments . . . .
" 5 U.S.C. S 554 (c) (1) . The Board must grant interested parties "an opportunity to present argument . . . .
because "the cardinal rule, so far as fairness 19 concerned, is that each side must be heard." Houston Lichtina & Power Co.
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), 10 NRC 521, 524 (1979).
Here, the notion that the Board should authorize low power operations based on a summary-disposition-type showing prior to the completion of discovery is completely unprecedented, and constitutes an attempt to change fundamantally the nature of this proceeding in a way NECNP could not have foreseen or con-templated. First, none of the Licensing and Appeal Board Orders in this proceeding can be construed as contemplating that the Board should entertain a summary disposition-type review of the merits of NECNP's remanded contentions at this stage of the pro-coeding. The Licensing Board's November 27, 1987 Order setting a (continued)
IV.
1
schedule to brief states only that it will review whether Hit is appropriate to renew at this time its authorization of low power," suggesting that it will entertain legal rather than fac-tual arguments.4 More importantly, under this Board's Order of December 4, 1987, discovery does not close until February 19, 1988. That order expressly states that only after the filing of briefs regarding the appropriateness of lower power athorization, will the Board determine whether motions for summary disposition are appropriate.5 Accordingly, fundamental notions of fairness and due process require that'NECNP be afforded the opportunity to present legal arguments as to why this standard is wholly improper.
A reply brief is necessary to enable NECNP to address ade-quately the lack of authority for authorizing low power opera-1 tions at this stage of the proceeding based on a determination that NECNP's remanded, and as-yet unresolved contentions lack merit. There is no authority in either Commission regulations or past Licensing decisions to permit authorization of low power operations to be made on the basis of fact and opinion as to the merits of the remanded contentions to which we have had no 4 Licensing Board Unpublished Order of November 27, 1987, slip
5 Licensing Board Unpublished Order of December 4, 1987, slio 922, at 3.
opportunity to reply. Even 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c), which Applicants and the staff claim govern low power authorization in the instant case, has never been construed as permitting a sum-mary disposition on the merits of unresolved contentions, partic-ularly where discovery is not complete. Rather, it is well established that, at this stage of the proceeding, the ultimate merits of the contentions advanced are not being debated. Hous-ton Liahtina & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Sta-tion, Unit 1), 10 NRC 521, 525 n. 16 (1979).
To the extent Applicants and the Staff present allegations of opinion that NECNP's remanded contentions, even if proven, are not relevant to low power authorization, NECNP requires a meaningful opportunity to controvert these opinions. However, such an opportunity will not be meaningful until the completion of the discovery period allotted by the Board. NECNP has not yet received the documents requested from Applicants in its first set of interrogatories, and has not yet received any response to NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on Contention I.V, or to NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories to the Staff on contention I.V and IV. These interrogatories, or any follow-up discovery, could very well lead to information that could rebut the allegations of Applicants and the Staff that NECNP's Conten-tions do not raise a safety issue during low power operations.
l For example, in arguing that NECNP Contention IV does not pose a safety threat at low power, the Staff asserts that, since water temperature is lower at low power, "Low power operations l
l l
l l
are likely to result in decreased biofouling." NRC Staff Brief at 15. However, NECNP is now conducting inquiries, through writ-ten interrogatories, into several reported instances of actual equipment breakages in critical safety systems, such as the Pri-mary Component Cooling System, to determine the extent that these incidents are attributable to corrosion caused by the accumula-tion of bacterial debris and sedimentation.6 These equipment breakages have occurred at zero power, and therefore at water temperature levels even less than low power temperatures. If these interrogatory responses and the results of any necessary ,
follow-up discovery, show that these equipment breakages were, indeed, attributable to some form of biofouling, NECNP will be able to demonstrate that NECNP Contention IV is relevant to low power operations.
With regard to NECNP Contention I.V, both Applicants and the NRC Staff's briefs argue principally that Applicants' program for in-service inspection of steam generator tubing is not a safety l
l l
l 6 See NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Pro-duction of Documents to the NRC Staff on NECNP Contentions j I.V. and IV, questions 32 through 34, filed on January 7, 1988, and NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the Applicants on NECNP Conten-tions IV, questions 2 through 4, filed on December 23, 1987.
These interrogatory questions, as well as others, inquire into the role played by corrosion resulting from biofouling from microbiological organisms, in several reported incidents involving leaks and degradation of safety-related equipment.
i l
One such incident, observed in NRC-Inspecition Report No. 50-l 4 3/87-23, caused the "B" train PCCW heat exhanger to actually become disabled.
1 1
1
i issue because the particular circumstances causing the tube rup-tures at the Ginna and North Anna plants would not occur at Seabrook. However, NECNP Contention I.V is not restricted solely to the incidents at Ginna and North Anna. Rather, these tube ruptures are illustrative of a general problem that may well be applicable at Seabrook. Accordingly, NECNP has filed inter-rogatories on the specific factual and analytical bases of the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.83 and the Technical Specifi-cations applicable to steam generator tube inspection so as to ascertain why these specific requirements have proven insuffi-cient to prevent steam generator tube problems in the past and therefore leave the public at grave risk of similar and/or addi-tional problems in the future.7 As yet, NECNP has received no response to these interrogatories. Because of all of the ques-tions raised by this outstanding discovery, Applicants cannot be allowed to operate until they are able to demonstrate that the 7 See NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Pro-duction of Documents to the NRC Staff on NECNP Contentions I.V. and IV. These interrogatories inquire into previously conducted testing which raises serious questions about the meaning of critical terms used in the Regulatory Guide. NECNP is also inquiring into the reliability of nondestructive exam-ination by eddy current testing and of the procedures used to determine whether primary to secondary side leakage exceeds the Technical Specification limit. In addition, NECNP is seeking information on the bases for many of the figures and percentages which determine the extent and frequency of inspection and the actions which are to be taken upon obtain-ing certain results from the inspection.
t
o .
probability of tube thinning, denting, or rupture causing an emergency core cooling system steam binding emergency or other serious event is acceptably low. Applicants or the Staff's simple statements of compliance with the Regulatory Guide and the applicable Technical Specifications are insufficient.
NECNP must be given an opportunity to reply to these allega-tions, and that reply must be at a meaningful point in this pro-ceeding. The Licensing Board, in recognition of the fact that NECNP's contentions present serious safety concerns, has given a lengthy period in which to conduct discovery prior to a hearing or summary disposition proceeding on these issues. This dis-covery period does not end until February 19, 1988. Accor-din.ly, NECNP could not, in any meaningful way, respond to the opinions proferred by the Staff that NECNP's contentions do not raise safety issues at low power, until the completion of the discovery process. Where safety is at issue, special care must be exercised to allow all parties a full opportunity to be heard.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Sta-l tion), 12 NRC 231, 232 n.1 (1980) (ASLB considered untimely filed response because reluctant to take position which might preclude litigation of safety or environmental issues without giving every party an opportunity to be heard).
Finally, 10 C.F.R. S 2.719(d) requires that, where an ini-i tial decision is stated to rest in whole or in part on fact or i
opinion of the NRC Staff, as this one is, "every party must be l afforded an opportunity to controvert the fact or opinion."
v.- .m -we ._oe ._
i
Because the NRC Staff's brief relies on affidavits submitted by experts whose testimony presents fact and opinion regarding the merits of NECNP's remanded contentions I.V and IV, and their relevance to low power operations, NECNP must be allowed an opportunity to controvert this.
III. NECNP Must Be Given An Opportunity To Controvert the Facts and Opinions Provided by Applicants and the Staff Recardina the Merits Of NECNP's Remanded Contentions.
Assuming, arcuendo, that it is permissible for Licensing Board to authorize low power operations based on Applicants' and the NRC Staff's allegations of fact and opinion that NECNP's con-tentions lack merit, NECNP must be given an opportunity to con-trovert the facts and opinion offered by Applicants and the Staff. It is well established that, before any decision that a contention should not be entertained, the proponent of the con-tention must be given some chance to be heard in response. Lona Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-81-18, 14 NRC 71, 73 (1981). As the Appeal Board recognized in Houston Lichtina & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating l
l Station, Unit 1), 10 NRC 521'(1979), "Insofar as contentions are concerned, the Intervenors must be heard in response because they cannot be required to have anticipated in the contentions them-selves the possible argunents their opponents might raise as grounds for dismissing them." Idi at 525.
Moreover, if this proceeding is to be treated as a summary disposition proceeding, as Applicants and the Staff appear to be l arguing, then the rules governing summary disposition must be l
l l
l l - . _ _ . . . -
l l
l
I l applied. Those rules require that where a party to a proceeding moves for summary disposition, "(a]ny other party may serve an answer supporting or opposing the motion, with or without affidavits, within twenty (20] days after service of the motion."
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a). This provision for an opportunity to file an answer opposing the motion is designed to give the non-moving party an opportunity to be heard and to challenge the motion, and should be strictly enforced. See, e.a.. Western Fire Insurance co. v. Coceland, 786 F.2d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 1986) and cases cited therein.8 More importantly, under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may refuse to rule on summary judgment motions in order to allow a party to obtain facts necessary to controvert the statements of facts and opinion. Here, NECNP has not yet received the documents requested from Applicants in its first set of interrogatories, and has not yet received any response to NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on Contention I.V, or to NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories to the Staff on Contention I.V an'd IV. Until NECNP receives responses to their outstanding interrogatories, and has an 8 Licensing Boards must apply the rules and standards estab-lished by the courts for granting or denying a motion for sum-mary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-cedure in their consideration of motions for summary disposi-tion. Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1& 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
~ . _ _ _
opportunity to conduct necessary follow-up discovery, it is impossible for NECNP to address the merits of its contentions in a summary disposition-type proceeding. Moreover, summary dis-position prior to the completion of discovery is particularly important where, as is the case, the crucial facts are largely within the knowldge or control of hte moving party. Subin v.
Goldsmith, 224 F.2d 753 (2nd Cir. 1955). Accordingly, NECNP may be entitled to request that the Board hold the summary disposi-tion proceeding in abeyance pending completion of discovery.
IV. Low Power Authorization is Inappropriate in Light of the Appeal Board's Remand of NECNP Contention I.2.B Regarding Environmental Oualification of RG58 Coaxial Cable.
On January 8 , 1988, the Appeal Board issued an order remanding NECNP Contention I.B.2, regarding environmental qualification of RG58 coaxial cable to the Licensing Board for additional proceedings.9 In its opinion, the Appeal Board expressly noted that "Should it prove necesary, the Licensing Board is to decide whether low-power operation of the Seabrook facility must await the completion of this remand." Slip 00, at 9 n.14.10 As yet, neither Applicants or the Staff have made any 9 ALAB-882.
10 At this point, the only conceivable circumstances under which it would be unnecessary to undertake a separate review of whether low power operation must await the completion of the remand on NECNP Contention I.2.B is if the Licensing Board determines that low power operation must await completion of
! discovery and resolution of NECNP Contentions I.V. and IV.
'hw e e u%a6-, mise - e m-
effort to demonstrate that this contention is not relevant to low power operations, or to rebut the arguments presented by NECNP in its January 4, 1988 brief regarding the serious safety concerns posed by the failure of Applicants to demonstrate adequately that the RG58 cable is environmentally qualified. Accordingly, no low power license may be issued unless and until Applicants satsify their burden of proof with regard to this outstanding, remanded contention, as well as the two, previously remanded contentions.
V. Conclusion In sum, NECNP is entitled to respond to Applicants' and the Staff's briefs, in order to present arguments as to why low power authorization may not be based on a determination regarding the merits of NECNP's remanded contentions. Further, NECNP requires an opportunity to reply to the Applicants' and the Staff's allegations of opinion and fact regarding the relevance of NECNP's remanded contentions at a meaningful point in the pro-ceeding, when the discovery process is cuapleted. Alterna-tively, NECNP is entitled to respond to Applicants' and the Staff's allegations of fact and opinion regarding the merits of NECNP's contentions, or to submit any affidavits as to why sum-mary disposition should be held in abeyance pending completion of 1
o .
j discovery. Finally, low power authorization is now premature, in light of the Appeal Board's ruling in ALAB-882.
Respectfully su si.tted, D
k&n $f Andrea Ferster /3s Anne Spielberg HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 14, 1988, copies of this pleading were served by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated on the parties to the attached service list.
/
/
Andrea Ferster t
{
I t
l I