|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20209H9101999-07-20020 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 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 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 ML20237C6981998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/Necnp Reply to Naesco Response to Proposed Contentions.* Board Should Admit Sapl/Necnp Contentions 1-4 & North Atlantic Energy Svcs Corp Arguments to Contrary. W/Certificate of Svc ML20237C6791998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Staff Answer to Contentions.* Petitioners Believe Board Can & Should Give Cases Consideration W/O Filing of Addl,But Not Substantively Different Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237A0501998-08-10010 August 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Response to Proposed Contentions.* Petitioners Failed to Propose Admissible Contention.Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Both Petitioners Should Be Denied ML20236X9281998-08-10010 August 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Contentions.* for Reasons Stated,All of Contentions Proposed Should Be Rejected & Proceeding Should Be Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2581991-02-14014 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General & Necnp to ASLB Order of 910124.* Intervenors Believe ASLB Should Reopen Record, Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues. W/Certificate of Svc ML19332D7241989-11-21021 November 1989 Intervenors Motion for Clarification Or,In Alternative,For Reconsideration.* Clarification or Reconsideration of Scheduling Requirements Set by Commission 891121 Order Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332D5191989-11-15015 November 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record Based Upon Withdrawal of Commonwealth of Ma Emergency Broadcast Sys Network & Wcgy.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Results Unlikely to Change ML19325E0171989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML19325E0011989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Response to Intervenors Motion to Amend Intervenors Motions of 890929 & 1013 to Admit Contentions on 890927 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise.* Issue Re Admittance Committed to Board Discretion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3511989-10-13013 October 1989 Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Advises That Applicant Contentions Filed on 890929 to Admit Addl Bases Re Scope of Onsite Exercsise Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248J0601989-09-28028 September 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Requests Hearing & to Engage in Discovery for Hearing on Contention.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247Q6761989-09-22022 September 1989 Intervenors Second Informational Suppl to Low Power Contentions Filed on 890721 & 0828.* Incorporates Encl Plant Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,Rev 2 Into Low Power Testing Contentions.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20246N1001989-09-0101 September 1989 Intervenors Reply to Responses of Applicant & Staff Re Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Contention Raises New Issues & Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E0321989-07-21021 July 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or in Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Requests Contentions Re Deficiencies in Training,Mgt Control,Supervision, Communication & Procedure Compliance Be Admitted ML20246P2041989-07-0505 July 1989 Joint Intervenor (Ji) Contentions on Spmc & June 1988 Graded Exercise.* ML20248F4691989-04-0303 April 1989 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Trial Brief on Contention Ji 56 & Sapl Contentions EX-2,4,6,7,8,12,13 & 14.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9761988-11-23023 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to 881114 Board Order Requesting Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 for Seabrook Proposed General Exercise Contentions.* Contentions & Bases Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M9431988-11-22022 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Seabrook Offsite Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9031988-11-22022 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20205R7201988-11-0202 November 1988 Town of Hampton Contention on Applicant Plan to Fund Decommissioning Costs of Seabrook Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5661988-11-0202 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07.* Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205R5441988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Financial Qualifications to Operate Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R4971988-11-0202 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Applicant Decommissioning Plan,Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation & Motion to Reopen Record.* Supporting Info & Svc List Encl ML20205R4821988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* ML20205E0011988-10-24024 October 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0271988-10-21021 October 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) & Town of Hampton (Toh) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Contentions Toh/Necnp EX-2 & Toh/Necnp EX-3.* Svc List Encl ML20205D8051988-10-21021 October 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Responses of Staff & Applicant to Intervenor Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206C1951988-10-18018 October 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20204G9731988-10-13013 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Proposed General Exercise Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation & Proferred Contentions Should Be Denied Admission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154S4571988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on June 1988 Seabrook Exercise.* Intervenor Contentions Should Be Disposed Of.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154P3461988-09-21021 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Town of Hampton Contentions Re 1988 Exercise of Offsite Plans & Preparedness for Plant Emergency Planning Zone.* Svc List Encl ML20154K8741988-09-21021 September 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions Submitted in Response to June 1988 Plant Initial full- Participation Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154K9331988-09-21021 September 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions on 880628-29 Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154N9061988-09-20020 September 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20154D7431988-09-12012 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-899.* Petition Should Be Granted on Basis That Integrity of RCS Significantly Paramount to Safe Operation of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6461988-07-0707 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Applicant Untimely Amends to Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151A6301988-07-0606 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* City of Haverhill late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196G7031988-06-27027 June 1988 Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3761988-06-22022 June 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on Spmc.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3991988-06-22022 June 1988 Reply of Massachussetts Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff and Applicant to Contentions 7 Through 83 Filed by Massachussetts Atty General.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A5261988-06-22022 June 1988 Town of Amesbury Reply to NRC Staff & Applicant Responses to Town of Amesbury Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachussetts Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A8701988-06-20020 June 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to First Six Contentions Filed by Commonwealth of Ma Atty General.* ML20151N6271988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Reply to Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on Seabrook Plan for State of Ma Communities ML20151A8361988-06-17017 June 1988 Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N6461988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for State of Ma Communities.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-20
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20209H9101999-07-20020 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 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 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 ML20237C6981998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/Necnp Reply to Naesco Response to Proposed Contentions.* Board Should Admit Sapl/Necnp Contentions 1-4 & North Atlantic Energy Svcs Corp Arguments to Contrary. W/Certificate of Svc ML20237C6791998-08-18018 August 1998 Sapl/New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Staff Answer to Contentions.* Petitioners Believe Board Can & Should Give Cases Consideration W/O Filing of Addl,But Not Substantively Different Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237A0501998-08-10010 August 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Response to Proposed Contentions.* Petitioners Failed to Propose Admissible Contention.Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Both Petitioners Should Be Denied ML20236X9281998-08-10010 August 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Contentions.* for Reasons Stated,All of Contentions Proposed Should Be Rejected & Proceeding Should Be Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2581991-02-14014 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General & Necnp to ASLB Order of 910124.* Intervenors Believe ASLB Should Reopen Record, Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues. W/Certificate of Svc ML19332D7241989-11-21021 November 1989 Intervenors Motion for Clarification Or,In Alternative,For Reconsideration.* Clarification or Reconsideration of Scheduling Requirements Set by Commission 891121 Order Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19332D5191989-11-15015 November 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record Based Upon Withdrawal of Commonwealth of Ma Emergency Broadcast Sys Network & Wcgy.* Motion Should Be Denied Since Results Unlikely to Change ML19325E0171989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML19325E0011989-10-20020 October 1989 Applicant Response to Intervenors Motion to Amend Intervenors Motions of 890929 & 1013 to Admit Contentions on 890927 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise.* Issue Re Admittance Committed to Board Discretion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3511989-10-13013 October 1989 Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Advises That Applicant Contentions Filed on 890929 to Admit Addl Bases Re Scope of Onsite Exercsise Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248J0601989-09-28028 September 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Requests Hearing & to Engage in Discovery for Hearing on Contention.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247Q6761989-09-22022 September 1989 Intervenors Second Informational Suppl to Low Power Contentions Filed on 890721 & 0828.* Incorporates Encl Plant Startup Test Procedure 1-ST-22,Rev 2 Into Low Power Testing Contentions.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20246N1001989-09-0101 September 1989 Intervenors Reply to Responses of Applicant & Staff Re Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Contention Raises New Issues & Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E0321989-07-21021 July 1989 Intervenors Motion to Admit Contention,Or in Alternative,To Reopen Record & Request for Hearing.* Requests Contentions Re Deficiencies in Training,Mgt Control,Supervision, Communication & Procedure Compliance Be Admitted ML20246P2041989-07-0505 July 1989 Joint Intervenor (Ji) Contentions on Spmc & June 1988 Graded Exercise.* ML20248F4691989-04-0303 April 1989 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Trial Brief on Contention Ji 56 & Sapl Contentions EX-2,4,6,7,8,12,13 & 14.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9761988-11-23023 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to 881114 Board Order Requesting Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 for Seabrook Proposed General Exercise Contentions.* Contentions & Bases Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M9431988-11-22022 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Seabrook Offsite Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20206M9031988-11-22022 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Comments on Significance of ALAB-903 to Exercise Contentions.* Svc List Encl ML20205R7201988-11-0202 November 1988 Town of Hampton Contention on Applicant Plan to Fund Decommissioning Costs of Seabrook Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5661988-11-0202 November 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07.* Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205R5441988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Financial Qualifications to Operate Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R4971988-11-0202 November 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contentions on Applicant Decommissioning Plan,Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation & Motion to Reopen Record.* Supporting Info & Svc List Encl ML20205R4821988-11-0202 November 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.* ML20205E0011988-10-24024 October 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0271988-10-21021 October 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) & Town of Hampton (Toh) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Contentions Toh/Necnp EX-2 & Toh/Necnp EX-3.* Svc List Encl ML20205D8051988-10-21021 October 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to Responses of Staff & Applicant to Intervenor Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206C1951988-10-18018 October 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to Sapl Contentions on June 1988 Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20204G9731988-10-13013 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Proposed General Exercise Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation & Proferred Contentions Should Be Denied Admission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154S4571988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on June 1988 Seabrook Exercise.* Intervenor Contentions Should Be Disposed Of.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154P3461988-09-21021 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Town of Hampton Contentions Re 1988 Exercise of Offsite Plans & Preparedness for Plant Emergency Planning Zone.* Svc List Encl ML20154K8741988-09-21021 September 1988 Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Exercise Contentions Submitted in Response to June 1988 Plant Initial full- Participation Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154K9331988-09-21021 September 1988 Town of Hampton & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions on 880628-29 Exercise.* Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154N9061988-09-20020 September 1988 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Graded Exercise.* Svc List Encl ML20154D7431988-09-12012 September 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-899.* Petition Should Be Granted on Basis That Integrity of RCS Significantly Paramount to Safe Operation of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6461988-07-0707 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Applicant Untimely Amends to Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151A6301988-07-0606 July 1988 NRC Staff Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* City of Haverhill late-filed Contentions Should Be Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196G7031988-06-27027 June 1988 Applicant Response to City of Haverhill Detailed Contentions.* Contentions Should Be Rejected & City Should Be Denied Admission as Party,Per 10CFR2.714.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3761988-06-22022 June 1988 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp) Reply to Applicant & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Contentions on Spmc.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A3991988-06-22022 June 1988 Reply of Massachussetts Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff and Applicant to Contentions 7 Through 83 Filed by Massachussetts Atty General.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A5261988-06-22022 June 1988 Town of Amesbury Reply to NRC Staff & Applicant Responses to Town of Amesbury Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachussetts Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A8701988-06-20020 June 1988 Reply of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General to Responses of NRC Staff & Applicant to First Six Contentions Filed by Commonwealth of Ma Atty General.* ML20151N6271988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Reply to Applicant Response to Intervenor Contentions on Seabrook Plan for State of Ma Communities ML20151A8361988-06-17017 June 1988 Reply of Town of West Newbury to Responses of Applicant & NRC Staff to Intervenors Contentions Re Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N6461988-06-17017 June 1988 Town of Salisbury Amended Contentions Re Applicant Plan for State of Ma Communities.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-20
[Table view] 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] |
Text
- - - - - ...- - - -- -.
I y
'I COCKETED UiNiT October 20, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '89 OCT 23 P4 :08 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (rr,<,
hefore the Dh i; j T
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,
t
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al. ) 50-444-OL
) ,
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency ,
and 2) ) Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO INTERVENORS' SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT CONTENTIONS ON THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE INTRODUCTION ,
Under date of October 13, 1989, The' Attorney General of The commonwealth of Massachusetts (MAG), on behalf of himself, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League '(SAPL) , and the New
( England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) filed a motion -
g
! atyled "Intervenors' Second Motion to Admit contentions on the September 27, 1989 Exercise" (the Motion). The purpose of the Motion is to (1) assert additional bases for its original onsite exercise contention (JI-Onsite Ex-1),1 and (2) proffer an additional contention (JI-Onsite Ex-2) .
1 Applicants have already responded to the original prof fer of this content. ion. Aeolicetts' Response to Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on the Seotember 27. 1989 Emercency Plan Exercise, cassim (Oct. 11, 1989).
DCColGLE2.SB 8910310203 891020 PDR G
ADOCK 05000443 PDR p
. t As additional bases for JI-Onsite Ex-1, MAG alleges the ,
following: The Staff Report on the Exercise (hereafter
" Staff Report") " indicates" that no PARS based upon dose assessment or other factors were actually prepared or implemented during the exercise. Thus, MAG argues there is ,
no assurance that Applicants have the capability to timely ,
identify adequate and relevant information, formulate appropriate PARS, communicate the PARS offsite, or adjust the PARS based upon changed meteorological conditions. It is
- also alleged that the Staff Report " indicates" that offsite field monitoring teams only demonstrated sampling procedures, but "(njo monitoring procelures or activities were tested even by mini' scenario. Therefore, there is no assurance that Applicants are capable of adequately implementing procedures for plume tracking or related monitoring activities."
By JI-Onsite Ex-2, MAG seeks to have litigated the issues of whether the failure to exercise the vehicular alert t
l and notification system (VANS)2 or to demonstrate a shift change means that the scope of the exercise was insufficient.
Herein Applicants reply to the Motion.
l I. THERE IS NO REGUIATORY BASIS FOR THE CONTENTION PROFFERED.
In the portion of Attachment A to the Motion in which he 1
l spells out JI-Onsite Ex-2, MAG, as he did in his initial 1
2 The short complete answer to this question is that l
VANS is part of the offsite emergency plan not the l
onsite emergency plan.
1 1
motion to have an onsite exercise contention admitted, continues to rely on a misconstruction of Commission regulations leading to the invalid legal theory that the regulations require that the exercise run on September 27, 1989, comply in scope with the definition of full participation exercise as set forth in 10 CFR 50, App. E 5 IV.F.1 n.4. That footnote defines the term " full participation" as used in the phrase " full participation exercise." The exercise run on September 27, 1989, however, was not, by definition, a " full participation exercise." It was an exercise run pursuant to the third and fourth L sentences of 10 CFR 50, App. E $ IV.F.1 which is the exercise to be conducted when, as, and if there has been a full participation exercise run within two years of licensing, but not within one year of licensing. Thus, the regulatory I
i language which forms the underpinning of the contention as l pleaded simply has no applicability to the September 1989 i
onsite exercise. This being the case, the motion is groundless and must be denied.
l l II. MAG HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE, AS IS REQUIRED, FACTS WHICH, IF BELIEVED, WOULD DEMONSTRATE' THAT THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE ACTIVITIES WHICH MAG CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN l THE EXERCISE RESULTED IN A SITUATION WHERE AN l EXTANT " FUNDAMENTAL FLAW" WOULD HAVE AVOIDED l
DETECTION.
The seminal case with respect to the necessary scope of an emergency exercise is the decision of the Appeal Board in Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
nb l
l Unit 1), ALAB-900, 28 NRC 275 (1988). Therein the hppeal Board set the standard by which the scope of an exercise ,
would be judged as: "that the exercise itself must be comprehensive enough to permit a meaningful test and evaluation of the emergency plan to ascertain if that clan is fundamentally flawed."3 Since that time, the Appeal Board has also held that if the flaw revealed is one which can be 1 readily corrected or can be corrected by supplemental training of personnel, it is not a " fundamental flaw."4 -
We are unenlightened by MAG's filing as to how the failure to engage in any or all of the various activities which MAG claims were improperly not included in the exercise l precluded the ascertainment of any " fundamental flaw (s)" in the plan. Moreover, preclusion by reason of exercise scope ;
is not even alleged. In light of the Appeal Board's l
l standard, this is a necessary allegation of basis with respect to a scope contention, and the failure to include such is fatal to the effort.
Prescinding from the foregoing pleading deficiency, an
. analysis of MAG's allegations fails, in any event, to reveal the suggested presence of any " fundamental flaw" in the L onsite plan which presently remains undetected, but would l
3 ALAB-900, 28 NRC at 286 (emphasis in the original).
l 4 Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook l Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 485-86 (1989). Egg also Lona Island Lichtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-903, 28 NRC 499, 506 (1988).
F 1
, l
.. 1 have been discovered through execution of the activities MAG suggests should have been undertaken. J l
Tne additional PAR activities MAG deems necessary would have uncovered, at best, only training inadeguacies. These are not " fundamental flaws". The same can be said for the 1 further activities he claims should have been, but were not, carried out by the offsite monitoring teams. Similarly, the ,
only problems which might have been demonstrated by a shift change also would have been of a personnel training nature.
And, insofar as the allegations of not demonstrating staffing sufficiency are concerned, the staffing of a plan is as well 1 demonstrated by personnel rosters and personnel records as by ,
an exercise and need not be demonstrated by such activity.
Indeed, thh existence of sufficient staff is usually viewed as a planning issue, not an exercise issue. Finally, the allegations as to VANS gain MAG nothing. The regulations require only an exercise of the onsite plan. Mobilization and deployment of VANS are performed in accordance with the offsite plan. App. Ex. 42, App. G & IP 2.16.
III. THE PROPONENTS OF THE NOTION HAVE NOT SATISFIED THE PROVISIONS OF 10 CFR 5 2.734 FOR REOPENING THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD.
In the Motion, as originally filed, MAG persisted in his t position that there is no need to satisfy the requirements for reopening the record set out in 10 CFR $ 2.734 in order to have the contention at issue admitted for litigation. In its recent decision denying the Intervenors' motion to admit
. . ~ . . . - _ - _
1 l
1 l
low power testing contentions for litigation,5 this BoaLd ruled that the Intervenors are required to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR E 2.734 in order to have any contention arising out of post-hearing tests or exercises 1 admitted.6 In light of this decision, MAG has now filed a l
document styled "Intervenors' Motion to Amend Intervenors' Motions of September 29, 1989 and October 13, 1989 to Admit Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise" (" Motion to Amend")'. This motion attaches as Attachment "A" MAG's attempt to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR E 2.734. On the assumption that that motion may be allowed, we address the showing attached thereto.
To begin with, MAG's attempt includes no affidavit of any kind. The absence of an affidavit is fatal. The regulation is clear:
1 "The motion must be accomeanied by one or more affidavits which set forth the factual and/or technical bases for the movant's claim that the criteria of naraaraoh (a) of this section have been satisfied. . . . Each of the criteria must be separately addressed, with a specific explanation of why it has been met."7 There is no leeway here. The Motion must be accomoanied by an affidavit. Each criterion must be seoarately addressed, 5 Public Service Company of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-28, 30 NRC (October 16, 1989).
6 LBP-89-28, Slip Op. at 14.
7 10 CFR S 2.734(b) (emphases supplied).
l 1
L.
l' with a specific explanation of why it has been met. The criteria to be addressed include timeliness and materially different result as well as the existence of a significant safety issue. None of the criteria are addressed by affidavit. This is fatal. i l
MAG's motion basically turns in the first instance on the legal issue of whether Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 50, App. E i IV.F.1, applies to the exercise of concern. Plainly it L does not for reasons stated above. However, assuming i
arguendo the contrary, the result would not establish the existence of a significant safety issue. Nor would it obviate the need.for MAG to explain why these additional activities he desires to have carried out are necessary to assure the !
discovery of otherwise undiscoverable fundamental flaws which would be a minimum prerequisite to showing a significant safety issue existed. Thus, MAG cannot avoid the need for an affidavit by the argument he makes that the scenario and Staff Report can serve as a surrogate for the affidavit.8 Neither of these documents purport to address the reasons why or why not the activities MAG asserts should have been 8 That staff or applicant documents might serve to substitute for an affidavit may have been an acceptable practice when motions to reopen were ,
governed by decisional authority. Egg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-12 4 , 6 AEC 358, 364 (1973).
However, the requirement for an affidavit was specifically included in 10 CFR $ 2.734 (b) and thus wiped out that case law, criteria for Recoenina Records in Formal Licensina Proceedinas, 51 Fed.
Reg, 19535, 19537 (May 30, 1986).
l 1
included would be necessary to uncover otherwise undetectable fundamental flaws or why a materially different result would l
obtain from a reopening. Indeed, the Inspection Report, j inasmuch as it endorses the scope of the exercise, refutes, rather than supports, MAG's position. The lack of an affidavit is plainly and simply fatal to this motion.9 Furthermore, there has been no sufficient showing, by affidavit or otherwise, that any significant safety issue is involved. The basic showing made in the Motion 10 is that, under MAG's legal theory, the regulations require the various additional matters he wanted done, to be done. Even assuming arauendo that his legal theory were correct, and therefore there has been a failure to meet a regulation, this is not, in and of itself, enough to demonstrate that there is a significant safety issue. Rather, by affidavit, there must be a showing that the necessary factual result of particular alleged noncompliance will be to create a meaningful threat -
l to the public health and safety.ll l 9 Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power l Station), CLI-89-1, 29 NRC 89, 93-94 (1989); Public L Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-915, 29 NRC 427, 431 (1989).
10 M2 tion to Amend, Attach. A at 3-6.
11 As recently as October 19, 1989, the Commission has commented on the phrase "significant safety problem" which, it would seem, must be shown to be likely in order that there exist a "significant safety issue," as follows:
"The Commission used the terminology
'significant safety problem' to Nor has there been the necessary showing that "a patorially different result would be or would have been ,
likely."12 MAG states that under his legal theory, if correct, Applicants would be barred from receiving a license.13 .This is hardly the case. The most he would have established at that point is a regulatory basis for his contention. And even if he satisfies this Board that he somehow has met the "significant safety issue" criterion, the RQat that he could possibly accomplish is some further delay while a remedial drill was run before full power operation-under the license was authorized. That a given result will be delayed is D21 the same thing as it being materially i
different.
In short, the showing made falls far short of that required by 10 CFR 5 2.734, both procedurally and '
substantively, l
( note that it intended to require something more than a theoretical--or conceivable--
issue, but insisted on there being a real matter that required resolution."
Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-20, 30 NRC (Oct. 19, 1989), Slip Op. at 18. It is submitted that no lower standard should be applied here.
12 10 CFR $ 2.734 (a) (3) (emphasis added).
13 Motion to Amend at 7.
L.'
IV. THE BALANCING OF THE "FIVE FAC'ICRS" DOES NOT FAVOR ADNISSION OF THE PROPOSED CONTENTION FOR LITIGATION.
The Motion fails in its showing with respect to the "Five Factors."14 Assuming that there exists good cause for the late filing on the theory that the contention could not -
have been filed before the documents attached thereto were received, and conceding that, as is almost always the case, the less weighty 15 second (protection of the novant's interests) and fourth (exte,nt to which that interest is represented by existing parties) factors favor the Movants, the fact is that analysis of the third (assistance in development of a sound record) and fifth (delay) factors reveals a balance which tips decidedly against allowance of the Motion.
Commission " case law establishes both the impurtance of the third factor in the evaluation of late-filed contentions and the necessity of the moving party to demonstrate that it has soecial exoertise on the subjects which it seeks to raise. (Citation omitted.) The Appeal Board has said:
'When a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and 14 Motion at 2-8; 633 10 CFR $$ 2.734(d), 2. 714 (a) (1) .
15 Commonwenith Edison Comoany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 245 (1986); South Carolina Electric and Gas ,
Comoany (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).
s summarize their proposed testimony'.n16 MAG, in his showing, proffers no witness. He does so on the theory that his e contention presents only a question of law and no witnesses are necessary. As noted above, the viability of MAG's l
proffered contention does turn in the first instance upon the l
resolution of a legal question, as to which we believe his t
i views are erroneous. However, even if he were correct that i
the regulations required the exercise to include the events ,
he desires, he still will need a witness to establish that the failure to include those events within the scope of the exercise would result in a situation where a " fundamental flaw" (1 3 a flaw (1) in the plan (not in its execution),
(2) which is not correctable by further training of l
personnel, and (3) not otherwise readily correctable)l7 would remain undetected. These are not pure legal questions; and to prevail on then MAG will need expert witness testimony.
The Motion flunks completely on the third factor.
16 Commonwealth Edison Comcany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 246 (1986), citina with anoroval, Mississinoi Power and Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982)
(emphasis added). Accord, Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 483-84 (1989).
17 Public Service Comoany of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 485-86 (1989). S.gg Al.E2 Lona Island Lichtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-903, 28 NRC 499, 506 (1988).
]
MAG concedes that the fifth factor favors the Applicants.18 Thus the two most important factors weigh against admission of the contention and it should be rejected.19 i
V. THE NOTION FAILS 'to COMPLY WITH 10 C.F.R. I E 2.714(b)(2) AS AMENDED. l The Motion fails to address the requirements recently added to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b) for:
"(i) A brief explanation of the bases of the contention.
(ii) A concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
, (iii) Sufficient information (which may include i
- information pursuant to paragraphs (b) (2) (i) and (ii) of l this section) to show that a genuine dispute exists with l _
18 Motion at 8.
19 Intervenors cite no support whatsoever for their extraordinary argument that, if they prevail as to the firs 1 factor, "the other factors must be considered much more lightly since they impose a burden on the intervenors. . . . " Motion at 3.
l This failure to cite any authority is hardly I
surprising, since, in essence, intervenors are asking the Board to amend 10 CFR $ 2.714 (a) (1) and wipe out factors (ii) - (v). Even more to the point, this Board has already stated that failure l to carry factors (iii) and (v) -- the factors which the intervenors flunk here -- can be suf ficient to preclude a late filed contention. Public Service Company of New Hamsshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-3, 29 NRC 51, 59, aff'd, ALAB-915, 29 NRC 427 (1989) ("even were we to assume that f actors (i) , (ii), and (iv) weigh in favor of the Petitioner, factors (iii) and (v) do not and, in this situation, would be controlling").
.r- - ~-
4 the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This showing must include references torthe specific portions of the application (including applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for aggh dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of mash failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief.n20 NAG attempts to justify his failure to comply with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) on the basis of the language in the Statement of Basis which accompanied the promulgation of the amendments to the Rules of Practice to the effect that the l
rules concerning contentions would not apply to contentions I filed in proceedings commenced prior to the effective date of the amendments.21 Prescinding from the thorny issue of l 1
whether a regulation can be made effective, but denied l 1
I.
i general applicability, by a statement in the Statement of Basis as opposed to language in an actual regulation, MAG q l
cannot take advantage of this statement. He is estopped from l doing so because of his assertion to the Commission just a few weeks earlier, in arguing that possible litigative delay l
, did not warrant exempting Applicants from being required to hold this Exercise, that the new requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 L 2.714(b) would apply to any contentions filed concerning the l
. Exercise.22 Having argued to his advantage to the Commission l: 20 54 Fed. Reg. 33180 (August 11, 1989) (emphasis added).
21 Motion at 9; 54 Fed. Reg. at 33179.
22 ResDonse of Mass. AG to ADolicants' Aeolication for l
an ExemDtion from the Reauirement of 10 C.F.R. Part
- 50. ADnendix E.Section IV.F.1 at 18 (August 21, 1989).
l l
that these "recent rule changes restricting the admissibility l of contentions," id., do apply to contentions concerning this Exercise, MAG is estopped from now arguing to this Board that l the rules do not apply.23 And, having admitted that the requirements apply, MAG's failure even to address them is grounds for the denial of his motion out of hand.24 !
The argument set forth immediately above was first articulated in the Applicants' response to the first motion filed by MAG for the admission of exercise contentions.25 In the Motion MAG seeks to respond to this estoppel argument with three short points.26 The first is a non seuuitur; the second is irrelevant because the estoppel arises from MAG's act, not from any response the Commission might have made to it. The third point is that NECNP and SAPL should not be l 23 Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Camnbell, 329 U.S. 362, 369 (1946); Wilcox Dev. Co. v. First Interstate l
, Bank of Orecon, 590 F.Supp. 445, 452-53 (D. Or.
1984), rev'd on other arounds, 815 F.2d 522 (1987);
but EAR Note, The Doctrine of Preclusion Acainst Inconsistent Positions in Judicial Proceedinas, 59 KARV. L. REV. 1132, 1136 (1946).
24 EAR Mpmorandum and Order (Rulina on Massachusetts I Attorney General's Exercise Contentions 8.C.1.
- j. 8.C.3. 18. and 21.C) at 12-13 (January 13, 1989),
I and cases cited therein; EAR AlR2 Georaia Power l Company (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-41, 24 NRC 901, 927-28 (1986),
modified, ALAB-859, 25 NRC 23, aff'd, ALAB-872, 26 NRC 127 (1987).
25 Aeolicants' Resoonse to Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on the Sectember 27, 1989 Emeraency Plan Exercise (Oct. 11, 1989) at 16-18.
26 Motion at 10. '
-le-l
l- I L .4 a 1
i estopped in any event because it was only MAG who made the I estopping argument. The rub is that both NECNP27 and SAPL28 ,
F joinedLin MAG's response to the exemption request, and thus
(
- estoppel runs against.them to the same degree and for the same reasons.
CONCIRS19l[ ,
The motion should be denied, and the proffered I contention excluded.
i' Respectfully submitted, L'
l 1
y
-/
Thornas 't. Digrran,' Jr.
George H. Lewald ,
l Jeffrey P. Trout '
Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C. Cook I
William L. Parker '
Ropes & Gray >
l One International Place L Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 ;
counsel for Applicants -
27 New Enaland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Oooosition to Aeolicants' Reauest for an Examntion from the Reauirement to Exercise the Onsite Emeraency Plan Within a Year Prior to the Issuance of Operatina License or, in the Alternative.
Reauest for Hearina on Aeolicants' Aeolication (Aug. 21, 1989) at i n.1.
28 SAPL's Resoonse and Obiection to Aeolicants' Aeolication for an Examntion From the Reauirement of 10 CFR. Part 50. Anoendix E.Section IV.F.1 (Aug. 21, 1989) at 3.
/
I V
Y L ,
i l
'89 DCT 23 P4 :08 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,
I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , one of the attorne $ Nobbthe Applicants herein, hereby certify that on October 20, 1989, I '
made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Adjudicatory File Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Commission
East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 L Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory !
4350 East West Highway Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East West Towers Building '
4350 East West Highway l Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Kenneth A. Mitzi A. Young, Esquire McCollom Edwin J. Reis, Esquire l 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the General Counsel l Stillwater, OK 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, 15th F1. f 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 John P. Arnold, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Attorney General Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Harmon, Curran & Tousley Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General 2001 S Street, N.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20009 Concord, NH 03301-6397
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 l'
1 1
Mr. J. P. Nadeau l
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office l Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road l General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Department of the Attorney P.O. Box 360 General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.
Boston, MA 02108 Chairman Mr. Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager 95 Amesbury Road City Hall Kensington, NH 03833 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Wnilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi (Attn: Tom Burack) 79 State Street 01950 Newburyport, MA -
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street (Attn: Herb Boynton) Boston, MA 02110 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 l
Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Office of General Counsel 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Federal Emergency Management Newburyport, MA 01950 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
l Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301
_.-- _-- .. . _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(
,. 1 l
l i
- l. .
Mr. Richard R. Donovan
, . Federal, Emergency Management i Agency .' I Federal Regional Center 1
-130 228th Street, E.W. l Bothell, Washington 98021-9796
^g Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 3 145 South Main Street' l P.O. Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 i
.- _-f '
l
- . -MJ2 m l
otss CW71gnan, Jr.
1 L (*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail)
, i l i fl h
1 l: .
i ,\
l 3 -- j l
.i: . . - - - , , .. - . , _ - . , - _l .. _-._ _ ,