|
---|
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 ML20247F3671989-05-24024 May 1989 Order.* Requests NRC & Applicant Views,On Question of Whether Atty General of Commonwealth of Ma 890516 Notice of Appeal from ASLB 881230 Partial Initial Decision Considered Premature,By 890602.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890524 1999-08-03
[Table view] |
Text
.,'
~ 7 Ff6 DOCKETED USMC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 FEB 26 P1 :58 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD CF Administrative Judges: U' Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman February 26, 1987 Gary J. Edles (ALAB-860)
Howard A. Wilber 3 SERVED FEB 261987 In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, _E _T _A _L . ) 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency Planning) and 2) )
)
Andrea Ferster, Washington, D.C., for intervenors New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, et al.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., R.K. Gad, III, Kathryn A.
Selleck, and Deborah S. Steenland, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
Robert G. Perlis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Section 2.758 of 10 CFR prohibits challenges to Commission regulations in adjudicatory licensing proceedings, except upon petition for a waiver or exception showing special circumstances -- i.e., that application of the regulation would not serve the purpose for which it was adopted. Such petitions are reviewed in the first instance by the licensing board presiding over the proceeding. If the board determines that the petitioning party has not made 8703040078 B70226 gDR ADOCK 0500o443 PDR DSo2
2 out a prima facie showing that the rule or regulation should be waived or an exception granted, it must deny the petition. The regulation then continues to apply to the proceeding. If, on the other hand, the licensing board determines that the petitioning party has made the requisite prima facie showing, it must certify that determination directly to the Commission itself.
On December 18, 1986, the applicants in this operating license proceeding filed a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758. The petition requests an exception to or a waiver of the Commission's regulations that require that the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for a nuclear power plant consist of an area approximately 10 miles in radius.1 The applicants propose that the EPZ for the Seabrook Station be reduced to a one-mile radius. The l
two-volume petition and attachments include several analyses, numerous affidavits, and an extensive legal j memorandum purporting to demonstrate that special
! circumstances at Seabrook, including the existence of "a l
! double containment," obviate the need for a 10-mile EPZ.
A few days after the filing of the petition, the Licensing Board directed that any responses to it be l
1 See 10 CFR 50. 47 (c) (2) .
l _
3 submitted by January 27, 1987.2 Several parties, including the NRC staff, filed requests for reconsideration of the l l
Board's scheduling order.3 In an unpublished memorandum and order issued on January 7, 1987, the Board denied those requests. In that same order, the Board also put forth its I understanding of what satisfies the section 2.758 require- ,
l ment that a petitioning party make out a prima facie showing '
that the application of the rule or regulation in question would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted.
Finally, the Board indicated its intent to determine if such j prima facie showing had been made by reference to only the petition and the responses.4 l
Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of December 23, l 1986 (unpublished).
3 The staff, for example, indicated that it could not adequately evaluate the complex technical I materials on which Applicants' petition is based and take a position on whether the Applicants' petition makes a prima facie showing that an exception or waiver to the rules and regulations should be granted to permit [an EPZ] of one mile . . . . The Staff cannot even set out a
- schedule for when it will be able to complete its technical review which would enable it to take an i
informed position on whether the petition makes a prima facie case for an exception or a waiver of the regulations. l l NRC Staff's Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board l Order of December 23, 1986 (January 5, 1987) at 3. l
' 4 The Board has since authorized parties to supplement l (Footnote Continued) l l
4 The intervenors, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Hampton, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, have filed a motion requesting that we review the Board's January 7 rulings.
They ask us to establish a new schedule for resolution of the issues presented by the section 2.758 petition so as to provide for discovery and the presentation of testimony, and to correct the Licensing Board's erroneous construction of the " prima facie" requirement. In the alternative, the intervenors ask us to certify to the Commission the question of whether interested parties are entitled to an adjudicatory hearing on the petition. The applicants and the NRC staff oppose the requests. -
Because the intervenors' motion does not satisfy the standards for interlocutory review of licensing board rulings, we deny it in all respects.
(Footnote Continued) their initial responses by no later than February 27. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of February 3, 1987 (unpublished). It has also recently observea: "The Board has on several occasions stated that we understand and accept that final complete technical responses to Applicants' 10 CFR 2.758 petition may require additional time up to twelve months. In recognition of that fact, we have provided the opportunity for the parties to give us any additional responses, including any technical responses, which they may have available by February 27, 1987."
Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of February 19, 1987 at 1-2 (unpublished) .
5 A. We are faced at the threshold with the applicants' assertion that we lack authority to entertain the motion.
In this regard, they claim that an appeal board has no appellate jurisdiction at this juncture over the processing by a licensing board of a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758 for a waiver of or exception to the Commission's regulations. The applicants contend that the regulatory scheme embodied in section 2.758 establishes specialized procedures for handling petitions for a waiver of Commission rules and contemplates only two possibilities -- denial of the petition by the Licensing Board, thus bringing the matter to a close, or certification to the Commission of a Board finding that a prima facie showing has been made. In either case, so the argument goes, the Appeal Board has no role to play 5 The NRC staff, however, thinks otherwise.
Noting that the issue "seems to be one of first impression," it maintains that the terms of the section do not alter our usual appellate authority, including our authority to direct certification of licensing board
! rulings, except in one respect; i.e., footnote 7 directs the Licensing Board to certify an affirmative finding regarding i
l i
5 Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Joint Appeal r (January 27, 1987) at 5-6 (hereaf ter, Applicants' Response).
6 NRC Staff Response to Joint Appeal (February 5, 1987) at 5 (hereaf ter, NRC Staf f Response) .
l
6 the prima facie showing "to the Commission notwithstanding the provisions of S 2.785." We agree with the staff.
We acknowledge that section 2.758 does not expressly address what role, if any, an appeal board may play while a licensing board has a section 2.758 petition before it for consideration. But 10 CFR 2.785 confers on us all the authority that the Commission would possess in operating license proceedings.8 And we have held -- without any Commission suggestion to the contrary -- that our authority is constrained only when the Commission explicitly directs.
As we indicated in a Shoreham opinion, if the Commission desires to preclude or to limit the exercise of . . . [our] authority in a particular . . . pro
-- say so expressly.geeding, it must~-- and does I
The only express limitation on our authority in t
connection with petitions filed pursuant to section 2.758 is i
[ the requirement in footnote 7 that the Licensing Board's l
l Id. at 6-7. Section 2.785 of 10 CFR authorizes the establisEment of appeal boards to pe form the functions that would otherwise be performed by the Commission itself in licensing proceedings.
8 The Commission has recently expanded the authority of the appeal boards to embrace all formal adjudications. See 52 Fed. Reg. 2993 (1987). This change in the Rules of Practice has no bearing on the issues before us.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power l
Station, Unit 1), ALAB-787, 20 NRC 1097, 1100 (1984). See also Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-685, 16 NRC 449, 451-52 (1982),
i
7 determination that a prima facie showing has been established be certified directly to the Commission notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 2.705. Hence, section 2.758 reveals no Commission intent to override other elements of our customary appellate jurisdiction, including our authority to direct the certification of licensing board rulings in proper circumstances.10 Given our determination that we possess the necessary authority to entertain the motion, we now turn to a consideration of whether we should exercise that authority.
B. As we recently observed in this proceeding, the Commission's Rules of Practice prohibit interlocutory appeals from, among other things, licensing board scheduling rulings.11 Thus, a motion seeking our intercession with respect to such a ruling must satisfy the criteria for directed certification. In order to obtain discretionary i
10
- As the applicants concede, we routinely play our normal appellate role at the end of a proceeding and review
! licensing board determinations that a prima facie showing has not been made out. See Applicants' Response at 7, l citing Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
! Units 1 and 2), ALAB-793, 20 NRC 1591, 1614-16 (1984). See also Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525, 546-48 (1986).
11 ALAB-858, 25 NRC , (January 15, 1987) (slip opinion at 4-6).
12 f Ibid. See generally 10 CFR 2.718 (i) , 2. 785 (b) (1) ;
l Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units
- (Footnote Continued) l l
l l
8 interlocutory review, a complaining party must demonstrate that the challenged schedule deprives it of procedural due 13 process.
The gist of the intervenors' argument is that the one month allowed for responses to the applicants' petition by the Licensing Board's schedule is wholly insufficient to permit an adequate reply to the host of issues surrounding the applicants' endeavor to establish a one-mile EPZ. The intervenors assume, in this regard, that they may have no other opportunity to challenge the petition and assert that they are entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition. They contend:
If no adjudicatory hearing is granted, then the inadequate and incomplete opposing affidavits --
which is all the Licensing Board's schedule permits -- may comprise the sole record on which the Commission must base such weighty and far-reaching questions as whether the size of the Seabrook Emergency by a factor of ten.((anning Zone could be reduced
! (Footnote Continued) l 1 and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975). As the l applicants point out, the intervenors purport to seek appellate relief pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714a. A party may appeal pursuant to that section if the Licensing Board's l determination denies a request for a hearing in its i entirety. We agree with the applicants that section 2.714a l is inapplicable to the request before us. The intervenors nevertheless assert that their request for interlocutory i
review also satisfies the requirements for directed certification.
13 ALABL858, 25 NRC at (slip opinion at 5-6).
14 Intervenors' Joint Appeal of the Licensing Board's (Footnote Continued) l l
9 The intervenors also allege that the infringement of their rights is compounded by the Licensing Board's erroneous construction of the requirement that the applicants establish a prima facie showing in support of their petition. The Licensing Board observed:
Although prima facie is not defined in 10 CFR 2.758, one Licensing Board has found it
" reasonable to equate ' prima facie' showing with
' substantial' showing." Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant),
LBP-85-5, 21 NRC 410 (1985). We believe, however, prima facie to mean evidence of a sufficient naturethatwoulg5cause reasonable minds to inquire further In the intervenors' view, the Board has established an impermissibly low threshold for further Commission review of the merits of the petition.16 In sum, the intervenors are concerned that there will be little or no screening of the petition by the Licensing Board and that the Commission may (Footnote Continued)
Supplemental Memorandum and Order of January 7, 1987 (January 16, 1987) at 11 (herea f ter, Intervenors' Appeal).
15 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of January 7, 1987 (unpublished) at 3 n.*. The Licensing Board has more recently clarified its original determination. It noted:
"It was our intent to indicate to the parties that we do not view the prima facie standard as one requiring either the highest standard of evidentiary proof which the substantial showing approaches, or the minimum evidentiary showing at the other end of the scale." See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of February 12, 1987 (unpublished) at 2.
16 Intervenors' Appeal at 7.
D I
10 thereafter simply grant the petition on the merits without further procedures.
Were it clear that the intervenors' scenario will materialize, we might agree that their procedural rights have been impermissibly compromised. But they are prepared to accept the proposition that the Commission may properly determine at the threshold whether a prima facie showing has been established, as long as it thereafter orders an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition.1 That being so, we find that the intervenors' concerns are premature and do not constitute an immediate infringement of
. procedural rights warranting our interlocutory intrusion into the Licensing Board's conduct of the proceeding. We likewise find no compelling reason to certify to the Commission at this stage the issue of whether the intervenors are entitled to an adjudicatory hearing on the petition.
To begin with, the Licensing Board has yet to make its determination as to whether the applicants have made out a prima facie showing for grant of the petition. The Board may conclude that no such showing has been made -- thus rendering moot all of the intervenors' concerns. We have routinely declined to e:<ercise our directed certification 17 Id. at 11 n.8.
i
, , ~ . - . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ , . _ . . . , , , - - - . . __ , _ .
11 authority where a party's concerns were premature.18 There is no basis for treating the intervenors' request here any differently.
We appreciate that, in contrast to the usual case, we may be unable to. afford relief even if the Licensing Board erroneously determines that the applicants have made out the
{ requisite prima facie showing. Such a determination, after
- all, must be certified directly to the Commission for consideration. That factor does not. prompt us to inject ourselves into the proceeding at this time. It '.s enough that a reasonable opportunity for relief will remain open.
If, as the intervenors fear, the Board were to rely on an erroneous construction of the regulations or otherwise improperly determine that the applicants have established a prima facie showing, they may raise those matters with the Commission itself.I Equally important, they may at that time also present their view that an evidentiary hearing is required before. .
t See, e.g., ALAB-858, 25 NRC at (slip opinion at 6-7); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-833, 23 NRC 257, 261 (1986).
19 We construe the Licensing Board's January 7, 1987, definition of " prima facie" as preliminary. As the applicants point out, and as the Licensing Board noted in its February 12 clarifying order, we dealt with the issue in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-653, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981),
attached to CLI-82-19, 16 NRC 53 (1982).
1
_ . _ , _ . - . . - - . , . . . _ - - - - , _ _ . . . , - , - - - - , - - - - . , - - ,,e .- - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - , +
e 12 the petition may be granted on the merits. In this connection, there is no basis for assuming that the Commission will simply grant the applicants' petition without according the intervenors and others an appropriate opportunity to respond or to raise due process concerns.
The regulations, after all, provide that "the Commission may direct such further proceedings as it deems appropriate to aid its determination,"20 and the staff argues that "the Commission would need to order further proceedings before it could reach a final decision on the Applicants' petition."21 In the circumstances, we cannot find at this juncture that the intervenors' procedural rights have been or necessarily will be infringed.22 Thus, they have failed to show that interlocutory review is warranted, i
The intervenors' motion is denied.
l 0
10 CFR 2.758(d).
2I NRC Staff Response at 12.
We intimate no position on the intervenors' claim that conventional evidentiary hearings are the only permissible procedural avenue available.
i l
_ _ _ _, . . . , - ~r._, ~ ,-
a Q
13 It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.
C. J ' n Shoemaker k
Secre ary to the Appeal Board l
l l
l l
l 1
l 1
l
.