|
---|
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
. . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
jIf /2 f Dated: Janu Nhhh,1988 18 JR 26 P2:16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f0 N h4 [k BRANCH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY A:iD LICENSING APPEAL BOARD d
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. ) 50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency and 2) ) Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANT 8' RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNON'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF THE NOVEMBER 16 AND 18, 1987 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD RULINGS CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Under date of January 7, 1988, the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("Mass. AG") has filed a Motion for Directed Certification of certain rulings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board excluding certain testimony proffered in this operating licensing proceeding by Mass. AG ("The Motion"). The rulings challenged excluded "Commonwealth of Massachusetts Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on Technical Basis for the NRC Emeraency Plannina Rules. Dr. Jan Bevea on Potential Radiation Dosace Consecuences of the Accidents That Form the Basis for the NRC Emercency Plannina Rules. Dr. Gordon Thomoson on Potential 8801270322 880121 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR ,,
])So 3 t
Radiation Release Secuences, and Dr. Jennifer Leanina on the Health Effects of Those Doses" ("the Testimony").
As is described in summary form therein, Test. at 12-15, the Testimony is in four distinct parts. The first part is a piece sponsored by Witness Sholly, Test, at 15-28, wherein he "des-cribes the technical basis for the current NRC emergency planning rules." Test, at 12. The second part is sponsored by Witness Beyea, Test, at 29-75, who describes his testimony as follows:
"In order to determine the extent of protection afforded the summer beach population by current emergency plans, we have modelled the radiation doses to the population that would follow releases of radioactivity from the Seabrook plant." Test. at 13.
The third member of the panel, Witness Thompson, gives testimony, IA21. at 75-77, which he describes as addressing:
"(1) The potential for an atmospheric release, similar to that designated PWR1 in the Reactor Safety Study, to occur from a steam explosion or high-pressure melt ejection event.
"(2) The range of variation of two parameters which af fect plume rise during a 'PWR1-type' release, specifically the location of con-tainment breach and the thermal energy release rate for the plume.
"(3) The potential for 'PWR1-type' releases to contain greater amounts of certain isotopes, such as those of ruthenium, than other categories of releases." Test. at 15.
The final piece by Witness Leaning, Test.77-107, is described by her as a discussion of "what is known about the acute and long-term health consequences that can be expected to befall human beings exposed to ionizing radiation in the range of dose levels 2
- that might eventuate from a nuclear power plant accident such as described in the testimony of Mr. Sholly, Dr. Beyea and Dr.
Thompson. I describe the kinds of injuries that would be received by the population in both the short and long term."
Test. at 15. A review of the entire testimony reveals that the foregoing descriptions, by the witnesses themselves, constitute an accurate summary of the testimony. In short, the testimony begins with Mr. Sholly's exposition as to what the contents of various documents are, leading to the conclusions that core melt accidents are within the spectrum of accidents to be considered in emergency planning and that the accidents Dr. Beyea testifies about are within that spectrum; this then is followed by Dr.
Beyea's piece which purports to model certain accidents at Seabrook and show that there is a potential for large doses to be received by the public if such events occur at certain times, a piece by Dr. Thompson purporting to show the contents of the source term causing these doses, and finally Dr. Leaning's conclusion that given the circumstances posited by the Beyea and Thompson analyses, a large number of persons would be injured.
After the Testimony was filed, and well prior to its being introduced, the Applicants filed a motion in limine seeking to have the Testimony excluded.1 On November 16, 1987, the Atomic 1Acolicants' Obiection in the Nature of a Motion in Limine to the Admission into Evidence of Commonwealth of Massachusetts Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on Technical Basis for the NRC Emeraency Planninc Rules. Dr. Jan Bevea on Potential Radiation Dosace Consecuences of the Accidents that Form the Basis for the NRC Emercency Plannino Rules. Dr. Gordon Thomoson on Potential Radiation Release Secuences, and Dr. Jennifer Leanina on the 3
Safety and Licensing Board granted the motion in limine. II.
5594-5609. Over seven weeks later, the motion at bar was filed.
It is in the foregoing posture that this matter comes before ,
this Appeal Board.
ARGUMENT A. The Motion Fails to State a Case for Directed Certification The standard to be utilized when deciding whether to grant or deny a request for directed certification is well known. Such relief will be granted "almost without exception" only when the ruling challenged has:
" . either (1) threatened the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.u2 It is also well settled that, absent exceptional circumstances, directed certification is not granted to review rulings as to the admissibility of evidence.3 Mass. AG does not even argue that the motion at bar quali-Health Effects of Those Doses (Oct. 1, 1987).
2Public Service comoany of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977).
3 Metropolitan Edison.Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), AL?sB-791, 20 NRC 1579, 1583 (1984); Toledo Edison Co.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98 (1976); Lono Island Lichtina Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 ), ALAB-353, 4 NRC 381 (1976); Power Authority of the State of New York (Greene County Nuclear Power i Plant), A LAB-4 3 9 , 6 NRC 640 (1977).
4
l fies under the first of the two above-quoted tests. See Mass. AG Brief at 3. Mass. AG does argue that the "basic structure" test is met. Stripped of rhetoric, the argument that Mass. AG makes comes down to the assertion that the evidence was important Mass.
AG's case. But this is true of any evidentiary ruling. Nobody offers unimportant evidence.
To give h.4s position some. gloss, Mass. AG points out that there is a second phase of hearings contemplated in this proceed-ing dealing with the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ.
This is used to make the ruling seem more nearly one that affects the basic structure of the proceeding. Presumably what is being conjured up is the concept that if error has been committed, there will have to be a redo of twc evidentiary phases. The fact remains that, in the event the challenged ruling should be reversed on subsequent appeal, the only thing that will be required is to go back to the Licensing Board, place the tes-timony in evidence, cross-examine it, and possibly have a little rebuttal. All of this would require a maximun of one or two weeks. The testimony is not of a nature that it will be any different as it applies to the Massachusetts side of the border than as it applies to the New Hampshire side B. The Ruling was Correct on the Merits Even though, for the reasons set forth above, the Applicants
- believe that the question presented is not a worthy candidate for directed certification, prior precedent requires us to address 5
l 1
+
the merits of the Motion.4 As Mass. AG states, Mass. AG Brief at 20, the desire of the Mass. AG is to have an objective standard in terms of "dose received" to judge the Seabrook emergency plans. HowcVer, the
-law is clearly to the contrary. In 1986, the Commission stated:
"Our emergency planning requirements do not require that an adequate plan achieve a preset minimum radiation dose saving or a minimum evacuation time for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone in the event of a cerious accident. Rather, thev ittamot to achieve reasonable and feas ble dose reduction under the circumstan-i ces; what may be reasonable or feasible for one olant site may not be for another." Long Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22, 30 (1986). (Emphasis added)
Some nine months later the Commission reiterated this position:
. "The existing emergency planning (regulation) does not require that plans achieve any preestablished minimum dose savings in the event of an accident. For example, approved emergency plans with full State and local governmental cooperation have highly variable evacuation time estimates ranging from several hours to over ten hours and the projected dose savings for such plans would vary widely. Thus the regulation is in-herently variable in effect and there are no bright-line, mandatory minimum projected dose savings or evacuation time limits which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency plans in the existing regulation.
Moreover, the dose savings achieved by l implementation of an emergency plan under
[ adverse conditions, e.g., during or following heavy snow, could be substantially less than under perfect conditions. This variability l
l 4Virainia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, i Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-741, 18 NRC-371, 374 n.3 (1983); Public l Service Ccmoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-734, 18 NRC 11, 14 n.4 (1983).
6 i
l l
1 l
is consistent with a concept or approach to emergency planning anG preparedness that is flexible rather than rigid." Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and/or Local Governments Decline To Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning (Proposed Rule), 52 Fed.
Reg. 6980, 6982 (March 6, 1987).
As recently as Nov. 25, 1987, the commission again spoke to this subject in promulgating its rule as to "Evaluation of the Adeauacy of Off-Site Emeroency Plannina for Nuclear Power Plants at the Operatina License Review Staae Where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Particioate in Off-Site Emeraency Plann-ing," 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (Nov. 3, 1987):
"The Comnission, in its 1986 LILCO decision, stressed the need for flexibility in the evaluation of emergency plans. In that decision, the Commission observed that it
'might look favorably' on a utility plan 'if
';here was reasonable assurance that it was capable of achieving dose reductions in the event of an accident that are generally comparable to what might be accomplished with government cooperation.' 24 NRC 22, 30. We do not read that decision as requiring a finding of the precise dose reductions that would be accomplished either by the utility's plan or by a hypothetical plan that had full state and local participation: angh findinas are never a reauirement in the evaluation of emeraency olans. The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the soecific dose reductions which miaht be accomolished under the plan or to the capabilities of any other olan. It further makes clear that a finding of adequacy for any plan is to be considered J generally comparable to a finding of adequacy 1 for any other plan." 52 Fed. Reg. at 42084 I (Emphasis supplied.)
"That decision also included language which could be interpreted as envisioning that the 7
i
- NRC must estimate the radiological dose reductions which a utility plan would achieve, compare them with the radiological dose reductions which would be achieved if there were a state or local plan with full state and local participation in emergency planning, and permit licensing only if the dose reductions are ' generally comparable.'
Such an interpretation would be contrary to NRC Dractice, under which emeraency olans are evaluated for adeauacy without reference to numerical dose reductions which miaht be agcomolished, and without comoarina them to othpr emeraency olans, real or hvoothetical.
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the soecific dose reductions which minht be accomolished under the olan or to the capabilities of any other olan. It further makes clear that a finding of adequacy for any plan is to be considered generally comparable to a finding of adequacy for any other plan." Id. at 42084-85 (Emphasis supplied.)
There is nothing new in this concept. Over four years aco, the Commissicn observed, "The Commission presumes as does FEMA that offsite individuals in the EPZ may, as a result of a nuclear plant accident, either become externally contaminated with radioactive materials or becoma exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, or both." Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-03-10, 17 NRC 528, 534-35 (1983).
The teaching from all of the foregoing is that evidence such as the Testimony here at issue is irrelevant in an NRC proceeding on Emergency Planning. The standard which must be met by an Emergency Plan is that it is designed to achieve reascnable and feasible dose savings given the circumstances of the site in 8
- question. Whether these dose savings will be high or low in absolute terms at a particular site in the circumstances of a given accident or class of accidents is irrelevant.
The Mass. AG, by making the argument that Seabrook's site could not be approved today, Mass. AG Brief at 28-32 seeks to characterize the position of the Applicants as seeking an exemption from the regulations for plants which received their construction permits before 1980. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever may be the political likelihood of Sea-brook's site being approved today, the regulatory result under applicable regulations, 10 CFR 100, should be the same.
Finally, the Mass. AG argues that prior case law handed down before the 1980 amendment to the emergency planning rules indicates that evidence such as that proffered by Mass. AG was received in cases where emergency planning within the LPZ under the old rule was involved. See cases cited by Mass. AG at Mass.
AG 3ricf 26-27. A review of these cases 5 will reveal that what was being considered were doses from design basis accidents, sometimes referred to as the maximum hypothetical accident under 10 CFR 100, which are accidents of far less severity than the largest within the "spectrum" which must be planned for unde. the new rule, and of far less se/erity than the accidents discussed SKansas Gas and Electric Comoany (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-77-3, 5 NRC 301, 370 (1977); Northern States Power Comoany (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), LBP-77-30, 5 NRC 1197, 1223 - 24 (1977); Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-17, 7 NRC 826, 853 (1978); Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 15 - 16 (1978).
9
1 in the Testimony. All that these cases stand for l's the well-known rule under the Regulations as they existed prior to 1980 that dose calculations from design basis accidents were used to set the LPZ and it was against these same dose calculations that the issue of whether there was a reasonable probability that "appropriate protective measures" could be taken for LPZ resi-dents was resolved. 10 CFR 5100.3(b). There is no issue or contention in this proceeding as to whether the requirements of 10 CFR 5100.3(b) are met.
CONCLUSION The Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Thomas G. DW, Jr.
George H. Lew&1d l
Kathryn A. Selleck l
Deborah S. Steenland i Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
- (617) 423-6100 l
Counsel for Aonlicants l
l l
10 l
l l
l- - .- _ _
s 00LMETED USNRC 16 JMi 26 P2:16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE f0 k[h<lhI[y' BRANCH I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on January 21, 1988, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas S. Moore Mr. Ed Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Region I Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office and Court House Commission Post Office Square Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02109 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Chairperson Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Board Fanel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission l
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l
- Robert Carrigg, Chairman Diane Curran, Esquire Board of Selectmen Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Town Office Harmon & Weiss l Atlantic Avenue Suite 430
(
North Hampton, NH 03862 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009 Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
l
3 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Flr.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108
.Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, EH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter S. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W. '
Washington, DC 20472
Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Charles P. Graham, Esquire Judith H. Mizner, Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham Silverglate, Gertner, Baker 100 Main Street Fine, Good & Mizner Amesbury, MA 01913 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110 J
Thomas'G. Dignan, Jr.
3-
-- -