|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20217M8771999-10-25025 October 1999 Requests That Industry Studies on long-term Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Be Provided to R Dudley at Listed Mail Stop ML20217M4331999-10-19019 October 1999 Submits Rept 17, Requal Tracking Rept from Operator Tracking Sys. Rept Was Used by NRC to Schedule Requalification Exams for Operators & Record Requal Pass Dates ML20217F5841999-10-13013 October 1999 Requests Revocation of License OP-11038-1 for GE Kingsley. Individual Has Been Reassigned to Position within Naesco ML20217F5811999-10-13013 October 1999 Forwards Insp Data & Naesco Evaluation of a EDG Exhaust Insp Conducted on 990407.Insp Ensured That Unacceptable Wall Thinning Will Not Occur During 40-year Design Lifetime of Sys ML20217C7321999-10-0808 October 1999 Forwards Copy of Seabrook Station Videotape Entitled, Completion of Seal Barrier Installation. Videotape Documents Process of Selecting,Designing & Installing Seal Deterrent Barrier to Preclude Entrapment of Seals ML20217B8621999-10-0505 October 1999 Forwards Rev 28,change 1 to EPIP Er 1.1, Classification & Emergencies, Per 10CFR50.54(q).Rev to Procedure Does Not Decrease Effectiveness of Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency Plan ML20217B7471999-10-0101 October 1999 Provides Notification of Change in PCT of More than 50 F,Per Requirements of 10CFR50.46(a)(3)(i),(ii).Tabulation of Large Break LOCA PCT Margin Utilization Applicable to Seabrook Station,Encl ML20212J8271999-09-30030 September 1999 Informs of Completion of mid-cycle PPR of Seabrook Station. Staff Conducted Reviews for All Operating NPPs to Integrate Performance Info & to Plan for Insp Activities at Facility Over Next Six Months.Plant Issues Matrix & Insp Plan Encl ML20216J2381999-09-30030 September 1999 Responds to Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Nrc Expects All Licensees to Operate Nuclear Facilities Safety IAW NRC Regulations & Requirements ML20216J2421999-09-30030 September 1999 Responds to Card Received in Aug 1999,providing Comments on NRC Interim Enforcement Policy Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Informs That Naesc Reported Seabrook as Y2K Ready Prior to 990701 ML20216J2471999-09-30030 September 1999 Responds to Which Provided Comments on NRC Interim Enforcement Policy Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Informs That Naesc Reported Seabrook as Y2K Ready Prior to 990701 ML20212K7921999-09-30030 September 1999 Confirms 990922 Telcon with J D'Antonio & T Grew Re Arrangements Made for NRC to Inspect Licensed Operator Requalification Program at Seabrook Facility ML20212J0301999-09-24024 September 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-10 on 990726-30 & 0809-13.No Violations Noted.Insp Discussed ML20212G5071999-09-21021 September 1999 Submits Complaint to NRC Re NRC Failure to Cite Seabrook Station NPP Operators for Failing to Periodically Calibrate & Establish Adequate Measures to Insure That Relay Equipment Met All Required Calibration Settings Prior to Installation ML20212C1881999-09-20020 September 1999 Ack Receipt of Which Raised Concerns Re NRC Enforcement Actions at Plant & Issuance of NCVs ML20212D1401999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards SE Accepting Request to Use Proposed Alternative to Certain Weld Repair Requirements in ASME Boiling & Pressure Vessel Code ML20212B9511999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards NRC Form 396 for MG Sketchley,License SOP-10685, Along with Supporting Medical Exam Info.Nrc Form 396 Has Been Superceded by Revised Version Dtd 971222,which Was Previously Submitted to NRC on 990812.Encl Withheld ML20212C3621999-09-15015 September 1999 Forwards Rev 34 to Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency Plan & Rev 85 to Seabrook Station Emergency Response Manual, Per 10CFR50,App E & 10CFR50.4 ML20212B5021999-09-14014 September 1999 Forwards Licensee Responses to EPA Questions Re Plant Seal Deterrent Barrier.Util Completed Installation of Subject Barriers on All Three Station Offshore Intake Structures on 990818.Barriers Will Preclude Entrapment of Seals ML20211Q8521999-09-0808 September 1999 Informs That Rl Couture,License SOP-11027,terminated Employment at Naesco on 990907.Revocation of License Requested ML20211N8781999-09-0303 September 1999 Forwards Response to 990820 RFI Re NRC Administrative Ltr 99-03, Preparation & Scheduling of Operator Licensing Exams ML20211J9291999-09-0303 September 1999 Forwards mark-ups & Retypes of Proposed Conforming License Changes Required in Connection with Transfers Being Sought in 990615 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests ML20211M3221999-09-0202 September 1999 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp of License NPF-86 & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. Corrective Actions:Conducted Prompt Review of Layoff Decision to Determine Relevant Facts DD-99-10, Informs That Time Provided by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision (DD-99-10) Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final on 990830.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 9909021999-09-0202 September 1999 Informs That Time Provided by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision (DD-99-10) Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final on 990830.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990902 ML20211J8811999-09-0101 September 1999 Forwards Comments on Seabrook Station Review of Reactor Vessel Integrity Database (Rvid)(Version 2).Minor Discrepancies Were Noted.Proposed Changes Are Encl in Order to Correct Discrepancies ML20211J8411999-09-0101 September 1999 Forwards Updated NRC Form 396 for E Decosta,Nrc License OP-10655-1.Without Encl ML20211G9191999-08-27027 August 1999 Informs NRC That Name of New Company, Ref in Order Approving Application Re Corporate Merger Is Nstar Which Is Massachusetts Business Trust ML20211J0401999-08-26026 August 1999 Responds to 990819 Request,On Behalf of Gr Pageau & Williams Power Corp,For Addl Time in Which to Reply to Nov,Issued on 990803.Response Due to NRC by 991008 ML20211H0651999-08-25025 August 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-05 on 990621-0801.One Violation Re Failure to Include Multiple Components within Scope of ISI Test Program Was Identified & Being Treated as NCV, Consistent with App C of Enforcement Policy ML20211G7761999-08-24024 August 1999 Expresses Great Concern Re Lack of Enforcement Actions Against Seabrook Station Despite Citations NRC Has Issued for Violations of Seabrook Operating License ML20211J2171999-08-23023 August 1999 Expresses Disappointment with Lack of Enforcement Action Against Seabrook Station Despite Repeated Safety Violations ML20211J4971999-08-21021 August 1999 Submits Comments Re Violations Cited in Early Mar & 990509 Insps ML20211H8361999-08-19019 August 1999 Submits Concerns Re Violations at Seabrook Station ML20211F2681999-08-19019 August 1999 Discusses Former Chairman Jackson & 990602 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Findings of Ofc of Investigations Involving Allegations Raised by Contract Electrician.Determined That Allegations Not Supported ML20211J3241999-08-15015 August 1999 Expresses Disappointment in Apparent Failure of NRC to Cite Seabrook Station NPP for Recent Violations of Safety Regulations Uncovered During Recent Insps in Mar & May ML20211J1831999-08-15015 August 1999 Submits Concerns Over Serious Deficiencies at Seabrook Station That NRC Has Declined to Take Enforcement Actions Against ML20210T1601999-08-13013 August 1999 Informs That as Result of Staff Review of Licensee Responses to GL 92-01,rev,supp1 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity, NRC Revised Info in Reactor Vessel Integrity Database & Is Releasing It as Rvid Version 2 ML20211J2071999-08-13013 August 1999 Expresses Concerns Re Violations Occurring Recently at Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.Requests Effort to See That Measures Taken to Stop Flagrant,Continuing Violations That Hold Danger to Workers & Community ML20210S9611999-08-13013 August 1999 Informs That NRC Received Encl Ltr from Pb Johnston Expressing Concern About Certain Impacts on Shareholders of New England Electric Sys with Respect to Nees Proposed Merger with Natl Grid Group ML20210S9511999-08-13013 August 1999 Responds to to Collins Expressing Concerns with Certain Terms of Proposed Merger Between New England Electric Sys & National Grid Group.Nrc Has No Authority to Interject Itself in Nees Merger with National Grid Group ML20210S2001999-08-12012 August 1999 Forwards NRC Forms 398 & 396 in Support of Applications for Renewal of Operator Licenses for Individuals Listed Below. Without Encls ML20210R8401999-08-11011 August 1999 Forwards Response to NRC Second RAI Re GL 95-07, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of SR Power-Operated Gate Valves ML20210S7331999-08-11011 August 1999 Submits Third Suppl to 980423 Application to Renew NPDES Permit NH0020338 for Seabrook Station.Suppl Provides Addl Info on Input Streams & Requests Increased Permit Limit for Chemical Used in Makeup Water Treatment Sys ML20210R9581999-08-11011 August 1999 Forwards ISI Exam Rept of Seabrook Station, for RFO 6, Period 3,for Insps Conducted Prior to & During Sixth Refueling Outage Concluded on 990510 ML20210Q7441999-08-11011 August 1999 Forwards Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Control of Canal Interest in Seabrook Station Unit 1 as Requested in Application & SER ML20210R7931999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards Cycle 7 Startup Rept for Seabrook Station, IAW Requirements of TS 6.8.1.1 ML20210N9421999-08-0505 August 1999 Informs That North Atlantic Suggests Listed Revisions to 990730 Draft Revisions to Committee Rept & Order.Further Revs Consistent with What North Atlantic Proposed at 990608 Hearing ML20210N5721999-08-0303 August 1999 Discusses Investigations Rept 1-98-005 Conducted by OI at Naesco,Seabrook Station & Forwards NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty - $55,000.Violation Re Failure to Promptly Correct Incorrectly Terminated Cables of Control Bldg Air ML20210P3361999-08-0303 August 1999 Discusses Investigation Rept 1-98-005 Conducted by Region I OI at Naesco,Seabrook Station & Forwards Nov.Violations Re Electrical Wiring in Control Panel for Control Bldg Air Conditioning Sys ML20210P3161999-08-0303 August 1999 Discusses Investigation Rept 1-98-005,conducted Between 980129 & 0527 at Seabrook Station & Forwards Nov.Violation Re Discrimination of Williams Power Corp,Contractor of Naesco,Against Electrician for Raising Safety Issues 1999-09-08
[Table view] Category:NRC TO PUBLIC ENTITY/CITIZEN/ORGANIZATION/MEDIA
MONTHYEARDD-90-05, Advises That Time Provided for Commission to Review Director'S Decision DD-90-05 Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final Agency Action on 901001. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 9010121990-10-11011 October 1990 Advises That Time Provided for Commission to Review Director'S Decision DD-90-05 Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final Agency Action on 901001. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 901012 DD-90-04, Informs That Time Provied by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-90-04 Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final Action on 900803.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 9008141990-08-14014 August 1990 Informs That Time Provied by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-90-04 Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final Action on 900803.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900814 ML20056B1841990-08-0202 August 1990 Advises That Aslab Cannot Accept P Pierce-Bjorklund 900730 Submission,Seeking to Appeal 900709 Director'S Decision DD-90-4.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900803 ML20055C7291990-05-31031 May 1990 Forwards Response to Questions Raised in 900226 & 0325 Ltrs Re Plant First 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Program Plan ML20248J3651989-10-13013 October 1989 Comely Ltrs to I Smith, & Chilk, .* Advises That Listed Documents Reviewed by Seabrook ASLB & Will Be Placed in Pdr.Served on 891013 ML20247J0561989-09-13013 September 1989 Responds to Suggestion Re Establishment of Natl Control Ctr to Monitor Cooling Water Temp of Nuclear Reactors. Establishing Natl Control Ctr to Monitor Reactor Coolant Temps of All Reactors Would Not Provide Added Safety Margin ML20246Q0711989-09-0101 September 1989 Ack Receipt of Re Plant Augumented Insp Team Rept on Natural Circulation Test at Facility.Augmented Insp Team Rept Will Not Be Changed & Further Interview W/Recipient Not Planned ML20246A8591989-08-17017 August 1989 Final Response to FOIA Request.Partially Withheld App a Document Re Confirmatory Action Ltr 89-11 Encl & Available in PDR (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20245G4311989-08-11011 August 1989 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards App a Documents Also Available in PDR ML20244C3221989-06-0707 June 1989 Responds to Re Conversion of Plant & Production of Pollution Free Power.Doe Should Be Contacted for Info Re Research Programs Associated W/Alternative Energy Sources ML20206D8871988-11-0808 November 1988 Responds to 881015 Postcard Recommending Keeping Seabrook & Pilgrim Facilities Closed & Question Re Nuclear Waste Disposal.Two Levels of Waste for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Considered ML20205L9451988-10-28028 October 1988 Forwards Rept, Seabrook Yrs, Per 881019 Telcon Request ML20205F6921988-10-27027 October 1988 Advises That NRC Brief Responding to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Appeal of Board 880808 Memorandum & Order Must Be Filed No Later than 881107.ASLAB Deferring Determination Re Hearing Oral Argument.Served on 881027 ML20155E5691988-10-0404 October 1988 Responds to to President Reagan Re Substandard Piping Fixtures,Unqualified Inspector Concern & Thoroughness of Licensee Insp to Determine Counterfeit Bolts.Nrc Issued NRC Bulletin 88-005 Concerning Problem ML20205A5301988-09-20020 September 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request.App a Documents Encl & Available in PDR IA-88-443, Final Response to FOIA Request.App a Documents Encl & Available in PDR1988-09-20020 September 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request.App a Documents Encl & Available in PDR ML20153D1421988-08-24024 August 1988 Advises of NRC Official Hours for Persons Wishing to Serve Pleadings,Papers or Documents on NRC Attys in Hearing Div of Ofc of General Counsel ML20155E5981988-06-0707 June 1988 Forwards 880517 Memo from J Gutierrez to W Kane Re Allegations of Wrongdoing,Per 880601 Request ML20155E5851988-06-0303 June 1988 Responds to to DOJ & 880601 Telcon Re Concerns Related to Conduct of Insps by Unqualified Authorized Nuclear Inspector & to Deliberate Attempt by ANI Insurance Co to Conceal Discovery.Addl Followup Activities Planned ML20153D0621988-04-28028 April 1988 Responds to Appeal Re Denial of FOIA Request for Document. Encl Aslp 880323 Memorandum & Order Agrees to Withhold Identity of Individuals & Organizations Needed to Implement Plan.Document Withheld ML20151M6061988-04-19019 April 1988 Responds to FOIA Request for Info Re Scores of Reactor Operators & Senior Reactor Operators.Forwards Requalification Exam Summary Source Sheets Listed in Encl App W/Personal Privacy Info Deleted ML20150C7601988-03-15015 March 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.No Agency Records Subj to Request Located.Plant Not Authorized to Begin Low Testing ML20196K0281988-03-0808 March 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request.No Agency Records Subj to Request Located ML20149N0851988-02-25025 February 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Portions of Util Evacuation Plans.Documents Listed in App a Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 4) ML20237D8551987-12-21021 December 1987 Responds to Expressing Concerns Re Allegation of Massive Internal Corrosion Problem Weakening Pipes at Plant. More Specific Info Required to Determine If Problem Already Under Investigation ML20235R8521987-09-30030 September 1987 Responds to Re EIS for Meltdown of Large Reactors & NRC Compliance W/Nepa.As Result of TMI-2 Accident on 790329,NRC Included Class 9 Accidents in Assessments in Fes Re Licensing of Plants.Related Info Encl ML20235L6551987-09-30030 September 1987 Final Response to FOIA Request.Forwards App M Documents.App L & M Documents Available in Pdr.App N Document Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 6) ML20238F7741987-09-14014 September 1987 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC Weld Falsification Issue.Forwards App J & K Documents.App J Documents Also Available in Pdr.App K Documents Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 6 & 7) ML20238E3931987-09-10010 September 1987 Final Response to FOIA Request.App D Documents Re SALP Rept Preparation Encl & Available in Pdr.App E Documents Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5).App F Documents Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 4) ML20238D9041987-09-0909 September 1987 Responds to Recipient to Lw Zech Requesting That Util Be Allowed to Operate Facility at 5% Power While Awaiting Approval of Evacuation Plan.Util Actions & Regulatory Approvals Required for Full Power License Noted ML20238D4741987-09-0101 September 1987 Fourth Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards App G & H Documents.App F,G & H Documents Available in Pdr.App H & I Documents Partially & Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 4,6 & 7),respectively ML20236H0831987-07-30030 July 1987 Responds to Re Possibility of LOCA at Plants. Majority of LOCA Research Complete & Understanding of ECCS Performance During LOCA Greatly Improved.Conservatism of Methods Specified in Commission Rules Demonstrated ML20235N8431987-07-15015 July 1987 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Correspondence Re Seabrook Emergency Planning.Forwards Documents Listed in App A.Documents Also Available in PDR ML20235D9091987-07-0101 July 1987 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Plants W/Bwr Mark I Containments.App L & App M Documents Available & Being Made Available,Respectively,In Pdr.App M Documents Forwarded.App N Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20214S0321987-06-0202 June 1987 Ack Receipt of Encl Re Plant.Author Comment on Issues Inappropriate Due to Current Licensing Hearings.Aslb Denial of Util Petition for Waiver of Rule Requiring 10-mile EPZ Noted.Served on 870602 ML20214P4511987-05-28028 May 1987 Responds to Recipient 870429 Concerns Re Emergency Planning in Licensing of Plant.Recipient Assured That Protection of Public Health & Safety Will Be Strongly Considered in Decisions Made Re Licensing of Plant ML20214H8121987-05-20020 May 1987 Informs That ASLB Denied Util Request for Reduction in 10- Mile EPZ for Facility.Nrc Would Require Specific Info Re Design,Const Mgt or Regulatory Compliance to Establish Meaningful Investigation ML20214G3211987-05-19019 May 1987 Ack Receipt of Encl Recipients Re Plant.Assures That Protection of Public Health & Safety Will Be Paramount Consideration in Decisions to Be Made on Hearing Record When Reviewing Decisions of ASLB & Aslab.Served on 870519 ML20214H1041987-05-18018 May 1987 Responds to Ltr to Denton Re Plant Operation.Util Must Comply W/Nrc Regulations & Contract DOE Svcs for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel or High Level Radwaste.Emergency Preparedness Currently Being Reviewed ML20213G0301987-05-13013 May 1987 Ack Receipt of Re Facility.Merits of Issues Cannot Be Commented on Since Facility Is Currently Subj of Licensing Hearings Before Commission.Protection of Public Health & Safety Is Paramount.Served on 870513 ML20215L8581987-05-0505 May 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipient Ltr Inappropriate. Protection of Public Health & Safety Will Be Paramount Consideration in Decisions on Hearing.Served on 870506 ML20215L8771987-05-0505 May 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipient Ltr Re Facility Inappropriate.Served on 870506 ML20215M0291987-05-0505 May 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipient Ltr Re Facility Inappropriate.Evaluation of Proposed Rule Re Emergency Planning Regulations Also Discussed.Served on 870506 ML20215L8881987-05-0505 May 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipient Ltr Re Facility Inappropriate.Served on 870506 ML20215K5311987-05-0505 May 1987 Informs That Because Plants Adjudicatory Hearings Currently Before Nrc,Comments on Merits of Plant Issues Would Be Inappropriate,Per Encl Recipient .Served on 870506 ML20215L3161987-04-20020 April 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipients Inappropriate.Concerns on Proposed Rule Re Emergency Planning Regulations Also Noted.Served on 870421 ML20215L3421987-04-20020 April 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipient Ltr Inappropriate. Concerns on Proposed Rule Re Emergency Planning Regulations Also Noted.Served on 870421 ML20215L2961987-04-20020 April 1987 Advises That Due to Licensing Hearings Before Commission, Comments on Issues Raised in Recipient Ltr Inappropriate. Public Health & Safety Always Paramount Consideration in Decisions Made on Hearing.Served on 870421 ML20209F3521987-04-15015 April 1987 Informs That Will Be Placed in PDR ML20213G5221987-04-10010 April 1987 Ack Receipt of Re Facility & Concerns on Proposed Change to Emergency Planning Regulations.Comments Inappropriate Due to Licensing Hearing Before Commission. Comments on Proposed Rule Welcomed.Served on 870413 1990-08-02
[Table view] Category:OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20217M8771999-10-25025 October 1999 Requests That Industry Studies on long-term Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Be Provided to R Dudley at Listed Mail Stop ML20217M4331999-10-19019 October 1999 Submits Rept 17, Requal Tracking Rept from Operator Tracking Sys. Rept Was Used by NRC to Schedule Requalification Exams for Operators & Record Requal Pass Dates ML20212J8271999-09-30030 September 1999 Informs of Completion of mid-cycle PPR of Seabrook Station. Staff Conducted Reviews for All Operating NPPs to Integrate Performance Info & to Plan for Insp Activities at Facility Over Next Six Months.Plant Issues Matrix & Insp Plan Encl ML20212K7921999-09-30030 September 1999 Confirms 990922 Telcon with J D'Antonio & T Grew Re Arrangements Made for NRC to Inspect Licensed Operator Requalification Program at Seabrook Facility ML20216J2421999-09-30030 September 1999 Responds to Card Received in Aug 1999,providing Comments on NRC Interim Enforcement Policy Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Informs That Naesc Reported Seabrook as Y2K Ready Prior to 990701 ML20216J2381999-09-30030 September 1999 Responds to Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Nrc Expects All Licensees to Operate Nuclear Facilities Safety IAW NRC Regulations & Requirements ML20216J2471999-09-30030 September 1999 Responds to Which Provided Comments on NRC Interim Enforcement Policy Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Informs That Naesc Reported Seabrook as Y2K Ready Prior to 990701 ML20212J0301999-09-24024 September 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-10 on 990726-30 & 0809-13.No Violations Noted.Insp Discussed ML20212C1881999-09-20020 September 1999 Ack Receipt of Which Raised Concerns Re NRC Enforcement Actions at Plant & Issuance of NCVs ML20212D1401999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards SE Accepting Request to Use Proposed Alternative to Certain Weld Repair Requirements in ASME Boiling & Pressure Vessel Code DD-99-10, Informs That Time Provided by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision (DD-99-10) Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final on 990830.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 9909021999-09-0202 September 1999 Informs That Time Provided by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision (DD-99-10) Expired.Commission Declined Review & Decision Became Final on 990830.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990902 ML20211J0401999-08-26026 August 1999 Responds to 990819 Request,On Behalf of Gr Pageau & Williams Power Corp,For Addl Time in Which to Reply to Nov,Issued on 990803.Response Due to NRC by 991008 ML20211H0651999-08-25025 August 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-05 on 990621-0801.One Violation Re Failure to Include Multiple Components within Scope of ISI Test Program Was Identified & Being Treated as NCV, Consistent with App C of Enforcement Policy ML20211F2681999-08-19019 August 1999 Discusses Former Chairman Jackson & 990602 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Findings of Ofc of Investigations Involving Allegations Raised by Contract Electrician.Determined That Allegations Not Supported ML20210S9511999-08-13013 August 1999 Responds to to Collins Expressing Concerns with Certain Terms of Proposed Merger Between New England Electric Sys & National Grid Group.Nrc Has No Authority to Interject Itself in Nees Merger with National Grid Group ML20210S9611999-08-13013 August 1999 Informs That NRC Received Encl Ltr from Pb Johnston Expressing Concern About Certain Impacts on Shareholders of New England Electric Sys with Respect to Nees Proposed Merger with Natl Grid Group ML20210T1601999-08-13013 August 1999 Informs That as Result of Staff Review of Licensee Responses to GL 92-01,rev,supp1 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity, NRC Revised Info in Reactor Vessel Integrity Database & Is Releasing It as Rvid Version 2 ML20210Q7441999-08-11011 August 1999 Forwards Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Control of Canal Interest in Seabrook Station Unit 1 as Requested in Application & SER ML20210P3161999-08-0303 August 1999 Discusses Investigation Rept 1-98-005,conducted Between 980129 & 0527 at Seabrook Station & Forwards Nov.Violation Re Discrimination of Williams Power Corp,Contractor of Naesco,Against Electrician for Raising Safety Issues ML20210N5721999-08-0303 August 1999 Discusses Investigations Rept 1-98-005 Conducted by OI at Naesco,Seabrook Station & Forwards NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty - $55,000.Violation Re Failure to Promptly Correct Incorrectly Terminated Cables of Control Bldg Air ML20210P3361999-08-0303 August 1999 Discusses Investigation Rept 1-98-005 Conducted by Region I OI at Naesco,Seabrook Station & Forwards Nov.Violations Re Electrical Wiring in Control Panel for Control Bldg Air Conditioning Sys ML20210J8421999-08-0303 August 1999 Forwards Order,Conforming Amend & SER in Response to Application Transmitted by Util Under Cover Ltr , & Suppl by Ltrs & 0407 Requesting Approval of Transfer of License NPF-86 ML20210K4911999-07-28028 July 1999 Responds to to Chairman Jackson Requesting Info on Concerns Raised by Constitutent a Menninger,Re Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Y2K Readiness IR 05000443/19990041999-07-26026 July 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-04 on 990510-0620.No Violations Noted.Emergency Preparedness Program Reviewed & Found to Be Acceptable ML20209G4711999-07-14014 July 1999 Informs That Unredacted Version of Supplemental Commercial & Financial Data for Baycorp Holdings,Ltd,Submitted in 990407 Application & Affidavit,Marked Proprietary Will Be Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790(b)(5) ML20196J7011999-06-30030 June 1999 Forwards Second Request for Addl Info Re GL 95-07, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves ML20209A6701999-06-25025 June 1999 Informs That NRC Ofc of NRR Reorganized Effective 990528.As Part of Organization,Div of Licensing Project Mgt Was Created.Organization Chart Encl IR 05000443/19990021999-06-21021 June 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-02 on 990321-0509.Violation Re Failure to Ensure That Critical Relay Calibr Characteristics Were Met Prior to Installation Was Identified ML20196G8421999-06-21021 June 1999 Forwards Copy of Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger & Opportunity for Hearing Re 990315 Application Filed by Nepco ML20196J4451999-06-18018 June 1999 Ack Receipt of ,Following Up on .In Ltr of April 5,EJ Markey Highlighted Issue of EDG Reliability in Light of Recent Discovery of Defective AR Relays at Seabrook NPP in New Hampshire ML20212J2651999-06-17017 June 1999 Informs That Unredacted Version of Updated Financial Data for Baycorp Holdings,Ltd Will Be Withheld from Public Disclosure & Marked as Confidential Pursuant to 10CFR2.790(b)(5) & Section 103(b) of Atomic Energy Act ML20212H6661999-06-15015 June 1999 Forwards RAI Re 990315 Application Request for Approval of Proposed Indirect Transfer of Seabrook Station,Unit 1 License & Proposed Indirect Transfer of Millstone,Unit 3 License to Extent Held by Nepco ML20207B2221999-05-20020 May 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-03 on 990308-0408.Violations Identified & Being Treated as non-cited Violations ML20206K1811999-05-0707 May 1999 Responds to Re Event Notification from North Atlantic Energy Service Co Indicating That One of Seabrook Two EDG May Have Been Inoperable Since June 1997. NRC Insp of Problem Not Yet Completed ML20206N6811999-04-23023 April 1999 Ack Receipt of ,Re Potential Inoperability of Two Emergency Diesel Generators Since June 1997 at Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.Issue Under Ongoing Insp & Review by NRC ML20205R1171999-04-20020 April 1999 Ack Receipt of Ltr Requesting Action Under 10CFR2.206 Re Enforcement Action Against Individuals Alleged to Have Unlawfully Discriminated Against Contract Electrician. Request to Attend Enforcement Conference Denied.Frn Encl ML20206B3451999-04-20020 April 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/99-01 on 990207-0321.Violations Identified Involving Failure to Properly Test Primary Auxiliary Building for Test Failures & Inadequate C/A to Prevent Recurrence of Repeated Pab for Test Failures ML20205P1871999-04-0909 April 1999 Discusses 990225 PPR & Forwards Plant Issues Matrix & Insp Plan.Advises of Planned Insp Effort Resulting from Plant PPR Review ML20205N4991999-04-0808 April 1999 Responds to Requesting Copy of OI Rept 1-1998-005,or in Alternative Summary of Investigation Rept. Request for Copy of Investigation Rept,Denied at This Time, Because NRC Did Not Make Final Enforcement Decision ML20205C1891999-03-24024 March 1999 Refers to Naesco 981030 Request for Approval of Alternative Inservice Exam to That Specified by ASME BPV Code,Section XI,1983 edition/1983 Summer Addenda.Forwards SE Supporting Proposed Relief Request IR-8,Rev 1 ML20204E4191999-03-16016 March 1999 Informs of Results of Investigation Conducted at Seabrook Nuclear Generating Station by NRC OI & Requests Participation at Predecisional Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Relative to Investigation 1-98-005 ML20204F3101999-03-16016 March 1999 Discusses Investigation Conducted at Plant by OI Field Ofc, Region 1.Purpose of Investigation to Determine Whether Certain Activities Conducted Per NRC Requirements.Synopsis of IO Investigation Rept 1-98-005 Encl ML20210U2281999-03-16016 March 1999 Refers to Apparent Violation of NRC Requirements Prohibiting Deliberate Misconduct by Individuals & Discrimination by Employers Against Employees Who Engage in Protected Activities,Investigation Rept 1-98-005 ML20207C2991999-02-26026 February 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/98-11 on 981228-990207.No Violations Noted.Inspectors Identified Several C/A Program Deficiencies Involving Timeliness of Reviews & Effectiveness of Previous C/As ML20203A2811999-01-28028 January 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/98-10 on 981115-1227.No Violations Noted.Operators Performed Well During Two Reactor start-ups & Response to Plant Trip on December 22.Radioactive Waste Mgt Program Properly Implemented ML20198Q7391998-12-21021 December 1998 Informs That Review of Licensee Response to GL 97-05, SG Tube Insp Techniques, Did Not Identify Any Concerns with SG Insp Techniques Employed at Seabrook That Would Indicate That Naesco Not in Compliance with Licensing Basis ML20198S1661998-12-17017 December 1998 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records Encl & Identified in App C & D.App E Records Withheld in Part & App F Records Withheld in Entirety (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) & App G Records Withheld in Entirety (Ref FOIA Exemptions 4 & 5) ML20198D1341998-12-16016 December 1998 Forwrds Ltr from J Bean Transmitting Final Exercise Rept for 981020,MS-1,out of Sequence Drill for Elliot Hosp in Manchester,Nh.Assistance Being Requested to Offsite Officials to Address & Resolve Identified Arca Timely ML20198C1131998-12-11011 December 1998 Forwards Insp Rept 50-443/98-09 on 981004-1114 & Notice of Violation.Nrc Identified That Safety Equipment Removed from Service at Beginning of Forced Outage Without Appropriate Monitoring of Status of Equipment as Required ML20197K1931998-12-0909 December 1998 Forwards RAI Re Utilities Participation in WOG Response to GL 97-01, Degradation of Crdm/Cedm Nozzle & Other Vessel Closure Head Penetrations. Response Requested within 90 Days of Submittal Date 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
'
~[a uc vq'c, UNITED STATES
>D \
!(g ,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
J g WASHING TO N, D. C. 20555
- j ]
\...../ APR 2 81988 i
Mr. Gregory Bergman Rockingham County Newspapers The Hampton Union IN RESPONSE REFER PO Box 1140 TO F01A-88-A-19 Hampton, NH 03842 (F0IA-88-28)
Dear Mr. Bergman:
This is in response to your letter dated March 22, 1988, in which you appealed Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley's response dated February 25, 1988.
Mr. Grirr.sley's response denied portions of one record subject to your Freedom of InforTnation Act (F0IA) request relating to redacted inf?rmation in the evacuation plan for the Seabrook plant. The partially denied record is identified on the enclosed appendix.
Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and have detemined that the previously withheld infomation will continue to be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (4) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)) and 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4) of the Comission's regulations. The enclosed Memorandum and Order dated March 23, 1988, irificates that the Licensing Board in the Seabrook proceedings has agreed to withhold the identity of individuals and organizations needed to implement the plan. As the Board stated, the disclosure of this r.iormation could harm the submitter's comercial, economic or proprietary interests and might harm the privacy and proprietary interects of the suppliers of services.
Tiiis is a final agency decision. As set forth in the F0IA (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(B)) judicial review of this decision is available in a district court of the United States in the district in which you reside or have your principal place of business or in the District of Columbia.
Sincerely, i Stello r.
E cutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated i
8805090052 880428 PDR FOIA BERGMA88-A-19 PDR i
-. .~. __
4 Re: FOIA-88-A-19 (F01A-88-28)
APPENDIX
- 1. The Portions of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire's Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Comunities.
?
-r--- -, - - , .. , , , . . . , , , , _ , , , , _
1 (W%e Cc {
LBP-88-8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
OF NEW HAMTdHIRE, et al. ) (Offsite Emergency Planning)
)
(Seabrook Station. )
Units 1 and 2) ) March 23, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Protecting Information From Public Disclosure)
I. BACKGROUND On September 10. 1987 Applicants filed in this proceeding its Seabrook Plan fo'. Massachusetts Communities (SPMC). Asserting personal privacy considerations.
Applicants deleted or "redacted" certain information concerning the identity of individuals and organizations needed to implement the plan.
In its memorandum and order lifting the stsy of low power operations, the Commission required that the applicants must provide to the NRC Staff and to FEMA any of l
the redacted information that the staff and FEMA deem l
necessary for their review of the plan. The Commission 1
<e73Ss u.2-> 7 3 OA l
.y
l o l d
l I
l l
l directed further that, prior to low power operation. .
l Applicants must indicate their willingness to provide "the detailed information [ deemed necessary by the Staff and FEMA) to the other parties to the proceeding, if necessary under appropriate protective orders from the Licensing I Board." The Commission expected that the Licensing Board would fashion orders that would ". . . allow full litigation l of contested issues without unnecessarily violating personal privacy." public Service Company of New Hampshire I (Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2). CLI-87-13, 26 NRC 400, 404-05 (1987).
On December 30. 1987, Applicants provided to the Staff information requested by the Staff and requested that the information be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.790 on the grounds that it contained commercial proprietary information. The Staff granted the request on l February 5, 1988. During the evidentiary hearings the Massachusetts Attorney General (Mass AG) requested the information. The Applicants agreed to provide it, but only under a protective order withholding the information from the general public. The Attorney General objected to a protective order as a matter of policy. Tr. 8398-8425, 8987-9004. The matter stood at an impasse until February 10, when the Massachusetts Attorney General, who is the lead intervenor on this issue, agreed to a temporary protective order until the matter could be resolved on the
, -- - - - - - - -- . - - , . - , ,n, ., , ,-- --n,
3 -
merits. Tr.9724-29. On February 17 the Licensing Board issued a temporary protective order. Active parties have executed affidavits of non-disclosure where required and we understand that most of the information has been provided in accordance with the terms of the temporary protective order.
In the meantime, Rockingham County Newspapers requested the information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), which request was denied by the Staff on )
l February 25 on the grounds that the information was <
l proprietary, apparently under FOIA Exemption 4 as restated l
l under part 9 of the NRC regulations. 10 C.F.R. 9.5(4). l The Massachusetts Attorney General filed his motion and memorandum opposing the entry of a permanent protective order on February 19, to which Applicants replied on February 25, with the Staff responding on March 3.
II. DISCUSSION j A. Introduction The Massachusetts Attorney General opposes a continuation of the protective order on the general grounds that one is not needed, that the Massachusetts public has a right to know who will be the responders in an emergency, and that a protective order will foreclose a full litigation of the plan by current and potential intervenors.
5 f ,
4 .
In response, Applicants argue that an extended protective order is needed to protect the privacy of the suppliers of services and facilities in the plan for Massachusetts communities, ar d that Applicants would be harmed in their commercial interests in the plan if the suppliers were publicly identified and subject to intimidation by per. ions not under the control of the Licensing Board.
For its part, the NRC Staff emphasizes the Applicants' commercial right to have the information withheld from public disclosure, ar.d would have the Board recognize the privacy rights of the suppliers.
In our rulings below, we extend the protective order through discovery to the beginning of the hearing on the plan for the Massachusetts communities. We will then reassess the need for protection. We agree with the i
Applicants and Staff that there is a significant probability :
that the suppliers' rights to privacy might be invaded absent a protective order. The Applicants have made at least a threshold showing that they have a protectible commercial or proprietary interest in the withheld l
information. Their initial request to the Staff for confidential treatment should not be mooted by compulsory l discovery in this proceeding. Our major focus, however, is on preserving the integrity of this proceeding.
Unrestricted disclosure of the identity of the suppliers
, prior to the evidentiary hearing will have the dangerous probability of allowing potential witnesses to be intimidated. In fact the very factual foundation of the litigation could be distorted if uncontrolled disclosure of the relevant information is authorized.
B. Authority to Issue Protective Order Tne Commission itself recognized that a protective order might be required to avoid violating personal privacy.
Seabrook, supra, 26 NRC at 405. The Commission't general discovery rule authorizes its presiding officers to make orders required to protect . . . a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression . . . ." 10 C.F.R.
2.740(c). The exemptions to the FOIA have been incorporated into the NRC discovery rules. Thus trade secrets and commercial financial information may be withheld from disclosure after balancing the interest of the public in disclosure and the interests of the persons urging non-disclosure. 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(4); 2.740(c).
Judicial officers have the inherent authority and responsibility to assure a fair hearing to the parties before it. Toward this end the NRC rules and the Administrative Procedure Act empower presiding officers to regulate the course of those hearings. 5 U.S.C. 556(c)(5);
10 C.F.R. 2.718(t).
-6 -
Further, the Commission's Licensing Boards must s
predicate their decisions upon a record supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. 10 C.F.R.
2.760(2)(c). See also S U.S.C. 556(d). Our authority to regulate the course of the proceeding therefore necessarily authorizes us to protect the foundation of the evidentiary record from deliberate distortion through annoyance, intimidation or embarrassment of potential witnesses or persons involved in the subject matter of the proceeding, as we explain below.
No party seriously disputes our general authority to impose orders restricting the disclosure of information.
The dispute centers on whether the intervenors' litigative needs will be compromised, whether a protective order is needed in this .tase, and whether any such need outweighs the strong public interest in conducting the proceeding ". . .
as open as possible to full public scrutiny." Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al. (Wolf Creek, Unit 1). ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408, 417 (1976).
A corollary to our finding that the Board is authorized to restrict the public dissemination of the protected information, in face of the strong public policy favoring disclosure, is that the restriction should be no greater than needed to protect the interests entitled to protection.
Wolf Creek, Ld., and at 418. Seattle Times Co. v. Rinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32; 81 L. Ed. 2d 17, 26 (1984), citing
7 -
Procunter v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413; 40 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1974) and other cases. We have followed this principle in considering the need for and the terms for extending the protective order.
, C. Y g,g,d for Protective Order As the Massachusetts Attorney General recognizes,
"[t)his is to be sure an unusual situation." Memorandum at 5. The emergency planning aspects of the Seabrook application have captured the public's attention as much as any proceeding. Even the candidates for the office of President of the United States found it appropriate to address the issue during the recent campaign in New Hampshi*e. The Commission itself commented that the Seabrook plant is surrounded by an "emotionally charged atmosphere" -- a fact to which the Board can attest from its own experiences during the hearings.
The Board has had an opportunity over many weeks to hear from and observe many who live near the Seabrook Station, including many who live in the Emergency Planning Zone. Most of those we have heard stror fly oppose the licensing of Seabrook, yet are civil and decorous. The Seabrook opponents by and large are as dedicated to civil order and to a disciplined society as any people anywhere.
There is, however, a proportionally small but aggressive minority of Seabrook opponents, including some
e
- 8 -
I members of the Clamshell Alliance, who have demonstrated by I civil disobedience their willingness to frustrate the licensing process by extra-legal means. They are not parties to the proceeding and are, therefore, beyond the control of the Licensing Board. If, as we fear, this group would seek to influence the licensing process by interfering with the agreements and expectations between Applicants and the suppliers in the plan for Massachusetts,
- there is little the Board can do except to deny them the opportunity.
There is another aspect of the emergency planning phase of the proceeding that sets it off from other administrative proceedings. In this case the Board is required to make predictive findings, i.e., there is, or there is not, reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency l at Seabrook. 10 C.F.R. 50.47. This fact gives rise to a i
rare opportunity to influence the outcome of the
., adjudication by changing the facts upon which the prediction must be ande. Our concern therefore is that some undisciplined opponents to the Seabrook Station will improperly interfere with the arrangements between Applicants and the suppliers for the purpose of influencing the hearing. This finding is unprecedented, required by the novel circumstances of this proceeding. Our reasoning should be well understood.
I l
1 I
9 -
l l
Stated another way, if the arrangements between the Applicants and the suppliers were made solely for the 1
purpose of providing emergency services and facilities in )
the Massachusetts communities, without regard to the licensing process, we would have no concern that the arrangements would be tampered with -- nor any authority over the matter. It is only because the arrangements have a j separate and special use in support of the license !
application that our cognizance over them and the need for protection arises.
The intervenors argue the matter from a slightly different direction. They state that, if in fact the community influences suppliers to abbrogate their arrangements with Applicants, that is simply a fact of life which must be accounted for when considering whether adequate protective measures can and will be taken. And, in l l
any event, the argument goes, sooner or later the information must be produced. The Board, however, does not accept this concept of a self-fulfilling, circular chain of l events. No one seriously suggests that a rational community would oppress the potential suppliers of emergency services solely because they would serve in an actual radiological ,
l emergency. The only reason for pressuring the potential l suppliers would be to prevent their arrangements,with the Applicants from being used in the licensing proceeding. If l
. . )
1 l
l 10 -
l the Board can interrupt the cycle by an appropriate
~ ]
protective order, it is our responsibility to do so. i D. personal privacy Considerations I
. The Massachusetts Attorney General points to the decision in Houston power and Lighting Company (Allens Creek, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 400 (1979), for the proposition that privacy protection to be afforded the suppliers in this proceeding was not granted in the similar Allens Creek case. There, the National Lawyers Guild sought to protect the identity of its intervening members to spare them harassment because of their asserted anti-nuclear views. The Appeal Board, drawing a distinction between the emotional climate surrounding the civil rights movement (where privacy needed protection) and the controversy attendant to issues of nuclear power, held that the identity of the Guild members had not been shown to require protection solely because of their views. Id. at 399, 400.
The case before us is quite different. As noted above, the Board through its own observations has determined that there are those who might harass the suppliers if it would suit their purposes, and that they might perceive a rational incentive for such harassment.
As argued by the Mass AG, there may be some doubt whether the privacy rights to which the suppliers might be entitled has a foundation in the exemptions to the Freedon
l s
l
. 1 11 -
i of Information Act. The respective provision of the NRC rules, Section 2.790(a)(6), pertains to medical, personnel, and similar files relating to the individual personal life.
But, as noted above, our discovery rules do-not end with Section 2.790. The general NRC discovery rule on protective orders, Section 2.740(c), and Federal Rule of Civil procedure 26(c), upon which the NRC rule was modeled, clearly permit protection from annoyance.and oppression independently of FOIA exemptions.
The Attorney General asserts his right to communicate the protected information to the general public. Both the Attorney General and Applicants have directed the Board's attention to Seattle Times Co. v. Rinehart, suora. 467 U.S.
20, which is, indeed, instructive on that point. There the Court upheld a Rule 26(c) privacy-type State protective order designed to prevent harassment of members of a controversial religious organization. The Court found that pre-trial discovery limitations on the dissemination of such l
information does not offend the First Amendment. Thus the l
Attorney General, gathering the information about the j suppliers solely through the discovery authority given for this proceeding, is reasonably restrained from disseminating that information. He would not have the information but for the needs of this litigation and he has no First Amendment rights to information gathered only through that means. Id.
at 32.
12 -
It should be noted that the protective order does not restrain the dissemination of identical information obtained through independent means. Id. at 34.
The Board therefore concludes that the suppliers of services and facilities in the plan for Massachusetts communities have an independent right to have their arrangements with the Applicants held private. This right of privacy is a separate and adequate basis in itself to
. extend the protective order. We also hold that the Applicants have sufficient privity with the suppliers to assert their privacy rights for them. As a practical matter the suppliers cannot raise privacy claims on their own. ,
l Only Applicants can do this effectively. United States v.
Lasco Industries. Div. of phillips Indus., 531 F. Supp. 256, 1 263 (N.D. Tex. 1981). (Employer may assert right of employee to privacy in medical records against Tederal subpoena.)
E. Applicants' Commercial Interests It is obvious that the Applicants have a substantial l
commercial interest in the arrangements with the suppliers.
Not only has money been expended in develooing the arrangements, as the Staff points out, but the secondary damages attendant to any disruption of the arrangements through tortious interference would be very great in terms
13 -
of delay, extra litigative costs, or perhaps the outright denial of a commercially valuable license to which Applicants might be entitled.
The Commission's rules authorize the non-disclosure of
"[t}rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(4). This protection, as we have noted, has its genesis in the Freedom of Information Act.
Exemption 4. 552 U.S.C. (b)4. Traditionally the type of information protected by Exemption 4 has been confidential commercial or financial information the disclosure of which would "cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained."
National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 769-70 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ("National Parks I").
Although the Applicants do not allege,a specific competitive injury from the disclosure of the identity of the suppliers, and there is no direct competitive significance to the information, any serious economic damage would weaken a utility's competitive position vis-a-vis other fuels.
Furthermore, the economic trend is for increased competition among central-station electricity generators. The Board believes that Applicants have a real competitive interest in the commercial information. In addition, as the.NRC Staff argues, substantial economic harm to the information's owner may be protected under Exemption 4 even where no
14 -
competitive position is at risk. Staff response at 7, ;
citing senerally, 9 to 5 Organization for Women Office Workers v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. l 721 F.2d 1 (First Cir. 1983). Finally, Exemption 4 is not by its terms limited to considerations of competitive harm.
F. Intervenors' Due process Rights The Attorney General argues that he will be denied a !
l "full litigation" of the plan for Massachusetts communities I
under a protective order because he would be denied access to hundreds of third party sources of information about the I l
suppliers. Memorandum at 14-15. There is no need to dwell on this point. We are simply not moved by the argument and can find no need for any party to consult in the community at large in its discovery efforts.
The protective order is very narrow. It permits access to the information by the attorneys, secretaries, and investigators of the office of Attorney General. It is similarly flexible with respect to other intervenors. The intervenors are permitted to conduct normal discovery-type interviews with the suppliers. In the case of business firms, they are permitted to contact the cognizant l
l employees. If any intervenor, in a particular situation I comes to a dead-end because it may not contact, say, a former employee without violating the protective order, it
]
i l
-,_ . , _ _ . , _ . ~ . . , _ _ _ . , _ - _ _ ..__- _ . _ . , . - _ ,__ , _ , _ . _ , _ . . _ _ . . _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ . _
can first seek an exception from the Applicants, then from the Licensing Board.
The Attorney General also makes a due-process argument on behalf of unnamed potential intervenors. This argument )
is even less convincing than the argument on the AG's own behalf, even assuming that he has standing to raise the ;
matter. Potential intervenors have no discovery rights.
Discovery is available only to parties to a proceeding. l 10 C.F.R. 2.740(a), (b). Memorandum at 12-13.
l F. Other Withheld Information Also redacted from the plan for the Massachusetts communities was a category of information in Appendix H, I
said to be the names and phone numbers of hundreds of l members of the New Hampshire Yankee offsite response organization. The Staff did not request this information.
Therefore the Applicants have not provided it to the intervenors under the temporary protective order. The Attorney General demands the Appendix H information. He I
argues that the Commission, in CLI-87-13, intended for the i intervenors to have the entire plan for the Massachusetts j communities. Applicants, looking at the plain language of CLI-87-13 note, that under that order they need only indicate their willingness to give to the other parties the detailed information requested by the Staff and FEMA. Id.,
26 NRC at 405.
l l
Neither the Applicants nor the Massachusetts Attorney General'has interpreted the Commission's order correctly.
The Attorney General has no basis for his opinion that the Commission intended that the entire plan be provided to the intervenors. The language is clear enough on that point.
Ld .
On the other hand, Applicants misread CLI-87-13 as stating that they are obliged to provide the intervenors
, with only the information requested by the Staff. That construction would imply that intervenors' discovery rights are controlled by the requests of the Staff or perhaps FEMA.
The Commission was simply explaining to the Applicants that, at a minimum and without undue delay, the intervenors should have whatever information the Staff and FEMA use to perform their evaluations. The Commission had no intention of restructuring the discovery rules in that respect. The standard for discovery remains as always: "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which J
is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding
. . . ." 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1). The information contained 1
in Appendix H is relevant to the proceeding. The question '
l to be decided is whether the information is privileged or I should otherwise be protected in accordance with general discovery principles. This matter was discussed during the telephone conference call of March 21. Tr. 9831-40. The foregoing interpretation of CLI-87-13 was explained to the
l s 1
l 17 -
parties. While counsel for Applicants points out that none of the Appendix H information would be discoverable until the contentions are filed, to move the matter along, Applicants are willing to produce the information forthwith under suitable protection. E.g., Tr. 9838 (Dignan).
Accordingly, the Board directs that the Appendix H information be provided under the protective order extended I today. However we authorize the Applicants to redact home l phone numbers because they are irrelevant to the issues, 1
private, and would serve no discovery purpose. We also l
authorize the Applicants to redact the energency phone '
numbers because there is no apparent discovery purpose for them and because the potential damage in the inadvertent release of the emergency numbers would outweigh any benefit from producing them.
II. ORDER The protective order approved on February 17, 1987 is extended until the beginning of the evidentiary hearing on the Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts Communities, or until further order of the Board. Prior to the beginning of the evidentiary hearing. Applicants may petition for further relief. Prefiled testimony containing protected information shall be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with
18 -
the terms of the order. To the extent possible, protected information shall be separated from other portions of ' ,
I prefiled testimony. !
l
\
THE ATOMIC FETY AND LICENSING BOARD w 9M tave A Line g ger, Jr. ,
A INISTRATIVE JUDGE '
Je/ry Hafbour ADMI STRATIVE JUDGE 8/
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman i
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE i l
Bethesda, Maryland l
March 23, 1988 l
4
- . - - . _.__ _ _ . . ._ , . - _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ .