|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217H9511999-10-21021 October 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Proceeding Re Nepco 990315 Application Seeking Commission Approval of Indirect License Transfers Consolidated,Petitioners Granted Standing & Two Issues Admitted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991021 ML20217N2561999-10-21021 October 1999 Transcript of Affirmation Session on 990121 in Rockville, Maryland Re Memorandum & Order Responding to Petitions to Intervene Filed by co-owners of Seabrook Station Unit 1 & Millstone Station Unit Three.Pp 1-3 ML20211L5141999-09-0202 September 1999 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4006, Demonstrating Compliance with Radiological Criteria for License Termination. Author Requests Info as to When Seabrook Station Will Be Shut Down ML20211J1451999-08-24024 August 1999 Comment Opposing NRC Consideration of Waiving Enforcement Action Against Plants That Operate Outside Terms of Licenses Due to Y2K Problems ML20210S5641999-08-13013 August 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Strike Unauthorized Response of Nepco.* Unauthorized Response Fails to Comply with Commission Policy.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q7531999-08-11011 August 1999 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Merger (Canal Electric Co). Canal Shall Provide Director of NRR Copy of Any Application,At Time Filed to Transfer Grants of Security Interests or Liens from Canal to Proposed Parent ML20210P6271999-08-10010 August 1999 Response of New England Power Company.* Nu Allegations Unsupported by Any Facts & No Genuine Issues of Matl Facts in Dispute.Commission Should Approve Application Without Hearing ML20210H8311999-08-0303 August 1999 Reply of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing.* Petitioners Request Hearing on Stated Issues.With Certificate of Svc ML20210J8501999-08-0303 August 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Amend.North Atlantic Energy Service Corp Authorized to Act as Agent for Joint Owners of Seabrook Unit 1 ML20211J1551999-07-30030 July 1999 Comment Opposing That NRC Allow Seabrook NPP to Operate Outside of Technical Specifications Due to Possible Y2K Problems ML20210E3011999-07-27027 July 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing. Intervenors Have Presented No Justification for Oral Hearing in This Proceeding.Commission Should Reject Intervenors Request for Oral Hearing & Approve Application ML20209H9101999-07-20020 July 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20195H1911999-06-15015 June 1999 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests.Requests That Commission Consent to Two Indirect Transfers of Control & Direct Transfer ML20206A1611999-04-26026 April 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Informs That Montaup,Little Bay Power Corp & Nepco Settled Differences Re Transfer of Ownership of Seabrook Unit 1.Intervention Petition Withdrawn & Proceeding Terminated.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990426 ML20205M7621999-04-15015 April 1999 Notice of Withdrawal of Intervention of New England Power Co.* New England Power Co Requests That Intervention in Proceeding Be Withdrawn & Hearing & Related Procedures Be Terminated.With Certificate of Svc CLI-99-06, Order.* Joint Request for ten-day Extension of Schedule Set Forth in CLI-99-06 in Order to Facilitate Parties Settlement Efforts Granted,With Exception of Date of Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 9904071999-04-0707 April 1999 Order.* Joint Request for ten-day Extension of Schedule Set Forth in CLI-99-06 in Order to Facilitate Parties Settlement Efforts Granted,With Exception of Date of Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990407 ML20205G0921999-04-0505 April 1999 Joint Motion of All Active Participants for 10 Day Extension to Permit Continuation of Settlement Discussion.* Participants Request That Procedural Schedule Be Extended by 10 Days.With Certificate of Svc ML20205G3091999-03-31031 March 1999 Petition That Individuals Responsible for Discrimination Against Contract Electrician at Plant as Noted in OI Rept 1-98-005 Be Banned by NRC from Participation in Licensed Activities for at Least 5 Yrs ML20204E6401999-03-24024 March 1999 Protective Order.* Issues Protective Order to Govern Use of All Proprietary Data Contained in License Transfer Application or in Participants Written Submission & Oral Testimony.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990324 ML20204G7671999-03-23023 March 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50.54(a) Re Direct Final Rule,Changes to QA Programs ML20207K1941999-03-12012 March 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Participation in Proceeding.* Naesco Wished to Remain on Svc List for All Filings.Option to Submit post-hearing Amicus Curiae Brief Will Be Retained by Naesco.With Certificate of Svc ML20207H4921999-02-12012 February 1999 Comment on Draft Contingency Plan for Year 2000 Issue in Nuclear Industry.Util Agrees to Approach Proposed by NEI ML20203F9471999-02-0909 February 1999 License Transfer Application Requesting NRC Consent to Indirect Transfer of Control of Interest in Operating License NPF-86 ML20199F7641999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests Motion Be Denied on Basis of Late Filing.With Certificate of Svc ML20199H0451999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests That Ui Petition to Intervene & for Hearing Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20199D2461999-01-19019 January 1999 Supplemental Affidavit of Js Robinson.* Affidavit of Js Robinson Providing Info Re Financial Results of Baycorp Holding Ltd & Baycorp Subsidiary,Great Bay Power Corp. with Certificate of Svc ML20199D2311999-01-19019 January 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Answers of Montaup Electric Co & Little Bay Power Corp.* Nep Requests That Nep Be Afforded Opportunity to File Appropriate Rule Challenge with Commission Pursuant to 10CFR2.1329 ML20206R1041999-01-13013 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of New England Power Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc ML20206Q8451999-01-12012 January 1999 Written Comments of Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co.* Requests That Commission Consider Potential Financial Risk to Other Joint Owners Associated with License Transfer.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990114 ML20199A4741999-01-12012 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Nepco 990104 Motion Should Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q0151999-01-12012 January 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Petition to Intervene of New England Power Co.* If Commission Deems It Appropriate to Explore Issues Further in Subpart M Hearing Context,Naesco Will Participate.With Certificate of Svc ML20199A4331999-01-11011 January 1999 Motion of United Illuminating Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Company Requests That Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20198P7181998-12-31031 December 1998 Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Moves to Intervene in Transfer of Montaup Seabrook Ownership Interest & Petitions for Summary Relief or for Hearing ML20198P7551998-12-30030 December 1998 Affidavit of J Robinson.* Affidavit of J Robinson Describing Events to Date in New England Re Premature Retirement of Npps,Current Plans to Construct New Generation in Region & Impact on Seabrook Unit 1 Operation.With Certificate of Svc ML20195K4061998-11-24024 November 1998 Memorandum & Order.* North Atlantic Energy Services Corp Granted Motion to Withdraw Proposed Amends & Dismiss Related Adjudicatory Proceedings as Moot.Board Decision LBP-98-23 Vacated.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981124 ML20155J1071998-11-0909 November 1998 NRC Staff Answer to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Staff Does Not Object to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20155D0041998-10-30030 October 1998 Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensee Requests Leave to Reply to Petitioner 981026 Response to Licensee 981015 Motion to Terminate Proceedings.Reply Necessary to Assure That Commission Is Fully Aware of Licensee Position ML20155D0121998-10-30030 October 1998 Reply to Petitioner Response to Motion to Terminate Proceedings.* Licensee Views Segmentation Issue as Moot & Requests Termination of Subj Proceedings.With Certificate of Svc ML20155B1641998-10-26026 October 1998 Response to Motion by Naesco to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* If Commission Undertakes to Promptly Proceed on Issue on Generic Basis,Sapl & Necnp Will Have No Objection to Naesco Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20154K8751998-10-15015 October 1998 Motion to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* NRC Does Not Intend to Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML17265A8071998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment on Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial Npps.Util Endorses Comments Being Provided by NEI on Behalf of Nuclear Industry ML20154C8171998-10-0606 October 1998 Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee.* Notice Given That W Reckley Appointed as Commission Adjudicatory Employee to Advise Commission on Issues Related to Review of LBP-98-23.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981006 CLI-98-18, Order.* Grants Joint Motion Filed by Naesco,Sapl & Necnp for Two Week Deferral of Briefing Schedule Set by Commission in CLI-98-18.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 9810061998-10-0505 October 1998 Order.* Grants Joint Motion Filed by Naesco,Sapl & Necnp for Two Week Deferral of Briefing Schedule Set by Commission in CLI-98-18.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981006 ML20153H4471998-10-0101 October 1998 Joint Motion of Schedule Deferral.* Naesco,Sapl & Necnp Jointly Request Temporary Deferral of Briefing Schedule as Established by Commission Order of 980917 (CLI-98-18). with Certificate of Svc ML20154F9891998-09-29029 September 1998 License Transfer Application Requesting Consent for Transfer of Montaup Electric Co Interest in Operating License NPF-86 for Seabrook Station,Unit 1,to Little Bay Power Corp ML20154D7381998-09-21021 September 1998 Affidavit of FW Getman Requesting Exhibit 1 to License Transfer Application Be Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790 ML20153C7791998-09-18018 September 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Util Endorses NRC Staff Focus on Operability & Funtionality of Equipment & NEI Comments ML20151Z5611998-09-18018 September 1998 Order.* Pursuant to Commission Order CLI-98-18 Re Seabrook Unit 1 Proceeding,Schedule Described in Board 980904 Memorandum & Order Hereby Revoked Pending Further Action. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 980918 ML20151Y0331998-09-17017 September 1998 Order.* All Parties,Including Util,May File Brief No Later than 981007.Brief Shall Not Exceed 30 Pages.Commission May Schedule Oral Argument to Discuss Issues,After Receiving Responses.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 980917 ML20153E8771998-09-16016 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Recommends That NRC Reverse Decision to Revise Emergency Planning Regulation as Listed 1999-09-02
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210S5641999-08-13013 August 1999 Motion of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Strike Unauthorized Response of Nepco.* Unauthorized Response Fails to Comply with Commission Policy.With Certificate of Svc ML20210P6271999-08-10010 August 1999 Response of New England Power Company.* Nu Allegations Unsupported by Any Facts & No Genuine Issues of Matl Facts in Dispute.Commission Should Approve Application Without Hearing ML20210H8311999-08-0303 August 1999 Reply of Connecticut Light & Power Co,Western Massachusetts Electric Co & North Atlantic Energy Corp to Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing.* Petitioners Request Hearing on Stated Issues.With Certificate of Svc ML20210E3011999-07-27027 July 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Requests for Hearing. Intervenors Have Presented No Justification for Oral Hearing in This Proceeding.Commission Should Reject Intervenors Request for Oral Hearing & Approve Application ML20205G0921999-04-0505 April 1999 Joint Motion of All Active Participants for 10 Day Extension to Permit Continuation of Settlement Discussion.* Participants Request That Procedural Schedule Be Extended by 10 Days.With Certificate of Svc ML20205G3091999-03-31031 March 1999 Petition That Individuals Responsible for Discrimination Against Contract Electrician at Plant as Noted in OI Rept 1-98-005 Be Banned by NRC from Participation in Licensed Activities for at Least 5 Yrs ML20207K1941999-03-12012 March 1999 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Participation in Proceeding.* Naesco Wished to Remain on Svc List for All Filings.Option to Submit post-hearing Amicus Curiae Brief Will Be Retained by Naesco.With Certificate of Svc ML20199H0451999-01-21021 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of Ui for Leave to Intervene & Petition to Allow Intervention out-of-time.* Requests That Ui Petition to Intervene & for Hearing Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20199D2311999-01-19019 January 1999 Response of New England Power Co to Answers of Montaup Electric Co & Little Bay Power Corp.* Nep Requests That Nep Be Afforded Opportunity to File Appropriate Rule Challenge with Commission Pursuant to 10CFR2.1329 ML20206R1041999-01-13013 January 1999 Answer of Little Bay Power Corp to Motion of New England Power Co for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* with Certificate of Svc ML20199A4741999-01-12012 January 1999 Answer of Montaup Electric Co to Motion of Nepco for Leave to Intervene & Petition for Summary Relief Or,In Alternative,For Hearing.* Nepco 990104 Motion Should Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20206Q8451999-01-12012 January 1999 Written Comments of Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co.* Requests That Commission Consider Potential Financial Risk to Other Joint Owners Associated with License Transfer.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990114 ML20155J1071998-11-0909 November 1998 NRC Staff Answer to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Staff Does Not Object to North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20155D0041998-10-30030 October 1998 Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensee Requests Leave to Reply to Petitioner 981026 Response to Licensee 981015 Motion to Terminate Proceedings.Reply Necessary to Assure That Commission Is Fully Aware of Licensee Position ML20155D0121998-10-30030 October 1998 Reply to Petitioner Response to Motion to Terminate Proceedings.* Licensee Views Segmentation Issue as Moot & Requests Termination of Subj Proceedings.With Certificate of Svc ML20155B1641998-10-26026 October 1998 Response to Motion by Naesco to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* If Commission Undertakes to Promptly Proceed on Issue on Generic Basis,Sapl & Necnp Will Have No Objection to Naesco Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20154K8751998-10-15015 October 1998 Motion to Withdraw Applications & to Terminate Proceedings.* NRC Does Not Intend to Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20153H4471998-10-0101 October 1998 Joint Motion of Schedule Deferral.* Naesco,Sapl & Necnp Jointly Request Temporary Deferral of Briefing Schedule as Established by Commission Order of 980917 (CLI-98-18). with Certificate of Svc ML20236W0931998-07-30030 July 1998 Reply to Staff & Naesco Objections to Joinder of Necnp & to Naesco Objection to Standing.* Advises That Jointer Issue Involves Only Question of How Pleadings May Be Captioned. W/Certificate of Svc ML20236U4221998-07-27027 July 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Supplemental Answer Standing Issues.* Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene,As Applied to Sapl & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236T5201998-07-27027 July 1998 NRC Staff Response to 980709 Submittal by Seacoast Anti- Pollution League & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Necnp).* Board Should Deny Intervention by Necnp. Staff Does Not Contest Sapl Standing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236J1111998-07-0202 July 1998 North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp Answer to Supplemental Petition for Hearing.* Util Will Respond to Any Further Petitions on Schedule Directed by Licensing Board Memorandum & Order of 980618.W/Certificate of Svc ML20249B9151998-06-24024 June 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (Sapl) 980605 Request for Hearing & to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 980618 Request for Intervention.* Board Should Not Grant Sapl 980605 Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20249B7631998-06-18018 June 1998 Supplemental & Amended Petition for Institution of Proceeding & for Intervention Pursuant to 10CFR2.714 on Behalf of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League & New England Coalition on Nuclear Power.* ML20249A9501998-06-12012 June 1998 Supplemental Petition of Great Bay Power Corp for Determination of Reasonable Assurance of Decommissioning Funding ML20199K3861998-01-29029 January 1998 Petition for Determination That Great Bay Power Corp'S Acceleration of Decommissioning Trust Fund Payments Would Provide Reasonable Asurance of Decommissioning Funding Or,In Alternative,Would Merit Permanent Exemption ML20217P7781997-12-18018 December 1997 Petition to Suspend Operating License Until Root Cause Analysis of Leaks in Piping in Train B of RHR Sys Conducted, Per 10CFR2.206 ML20140B9601997-06-0404 June 1997 Suppl to Great Bay Power Corp Petition for Partial Reconsideration of Exemption Order to Submit Requested Cost Data & to Request,In Alternate,Further Exemption ML20135A1051997-02-21021 February 1997 Petition of Great Bay Power Corp for Partial Reconsideration of Exemption Order.* Seeks Reconsideration of Staff'S Preliminary Finding That Great Bay Is Not Electric Utility as Defined by NRC in 10CFR50.2 ML20094N4021992-03-27027 March 1992 App to Appeal of Ofc of Consumer Advocate (Nuclear Decommissioning Finance Committee) Appeal by Petition Per Rsa 541 & Rule 10 ML20076D1281991-07-17017 July 1991 Licensee Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Appeal Should Be Dismissed Based on Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20073E1301991-04-22022 April 1991 Opposition of Ma Atty General & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Board Should Reopen Record,Permit Discovery & Hold Hearing on Beach Sheltering Issues ML20070V3311991-03-29029 March 1991 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Record Clarification Directive in ALAB-939.* Licensee Request That Motion Be Moved on Grounds That Issues Herein Identified Became Moot & Thus Resolved.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070V4061991-03-25025 March 1991 Massachusetts Atty General Response to Appeal Board 910311 Order.* License Should Be Vacated Until There Is Evidence of Adequate Protective Measure for Special Needs Population. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076N0831991-03-21021 March 1991 Massachusetts Atty General Response to Appeal Board 910308 Order.* Opposes Licensing Board Issuance of Full Power OL Based on Reliance of Adequacy of Plan.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076N1861991-03-19019 March 1991 Intervenors Reply to NRC Staff & Licensee Responses to 910222 Appeal Board Order.* NRC & Licensee Should File Appropriate Motions & Supply Requisite Evidentiary Basis That Will Allow Board to Make Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070M5151991-03-18018 March 1991 Licensee Response to Appeal Board 910308 Order.* Listed Issues Currently Being Appealed Should Be Dismissed as Moot. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076N0671991-03-15015 March 1991 Licensee Response to Appeal Board 910311 Order.* Controversy Re Special Needs Survey Resolved.Next Survey Will Be Designed by Person Selected by State of Ma & Licensee Will Pay Costs.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070M3781991-03-11011 March 1991 Licensee Response to 910222 Appeal Board Order.* Response Opposing Suspending or Otherwise Affecting OL for Plant Re Offsite Emergency Plan That Has Been Twice Exercised W/No Weakness Identified.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20070M2101991-03-11011 March 1991 Reply to Appeal Board 910222 Order.* Response Opposes ALAB-918 Issues Re Onsite Exercise Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20029B6061991-02-28028 February 1991 Response of Ma Atty General to Appeal Board 910222 Order.* Questionable Whether Eight Issues Resolved.To Dismiss Issues Would Be Wrong on Procedural Grounds & Moot on Substantive Grounds.W/Certificate of Svc ML20070E7741991-02-25025 February 1991 Opposition to Licensee Motion to Dismiss Appeal of LPB-89-38.* Believes Board Should Not Dismiss Intervenors Appeal Because There Was No Hearing on Rejected Contentions. Board Should Deny Licensee Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H0831991-02-12012 February 1991 Licensee Motion to Dismiss Appeal of LBP-89-38.* Appeal Should Be Dismissed Either as Moot or on Grounds That as Matter of Law,Board Correct in Denying Hearing W/Respect to Contentions at Issue.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H0021991-02-0808 February 1991 Licensee Response to Appeal Board Order of 910204.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C5081991-02-0101 February 1991 Ma Atty General Response to Appeal Board Dtd 910122.* Identifies Two Issues That Potentially May Be Resolved. State Will Continue to Investigate Facts Re post-hearing Events That May Effect Pending Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML20029A0451991-01-28028 January 1991 Licensee Suggestion for Certified Question.* Draft Certified Question for Appeal Board Encl.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20029A0431991-01-28028 January 1991 Licensee Response to 910124 Memorandum & Order.* Common Ref Document Derived from Copying Respective Portions of Emergency Response Plan & Associated Documents Provided.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20070U4811991-01-24024 January 1991 Motion Requesting Limited Oral Argument Before Commission of City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Dept New Hampshire Electric Cooperative Mact Towns ML20029A0091991-01-24024 January 1991 Response to Appeal Board 910111 Order.* Atty General Will Continue Ad Intervenor in Facility Licensing Proceeding. Changes to Emergency Planning for Facility Forthcoming. W/Certificate of Svc ML20029A0121991-01-24024 January 1991 Motion for Substitution of Party.* Atty General s Harshbarger Moves That Secretary of NRC Enter Order Substituting Him in Place Jm Shannon as Intervenor to Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-08-03
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _.
"//95
~ ' '
CCCKCTCO September 28, bk8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '68 CCT -3 P3 :03 before the ,. r -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, gt 31 ) 50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Onsite Emergency and 2) ) Planning and Safety
) Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADMIT EXERCISE CONTENTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN THE RECORD STATEMENT OF THE CASE Under date of September 16, 1988, the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, and the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Intervenors) filed with this Board a document entitled Motion to Admit Exercise Contention or, in the Alternative. to Pecoen s the Record (the Mr, tion). The thrust of the Motion is to inject into the proceeding a new contention which would permit the litigation of certain alleged deficiencies in the Seabrook Station onsite emergency plan.
8810050104 080920 PDR ADOCK 05000443 C PDR 90 b
l The gravamen of the Motion is an inspection report issued by the Staff on July 6, 19881 and served by mail upon all parties to the Egabrook proceeding on July 7, 1988.2 In that report, the Staff reported its observations of a graded exercise held on June 28, 1988. As is customary in such ;
reports, the Sthff, in a discussion of "Exercise Observations,"3 listed "strengths" and "weaknesses."
Included in the discussion of "weaknesses" was the following item "1. The Technical Support Center (TSC) and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) staff displayed questionable engineering judgment and/or did not address technical concerns (50-443/88-08-01). For examplet
. Neither the EOF or TSC staff questioned a release of greater than 7000 curies per second with only clad damage and no core uncovery;
. Efforts continued to restore the Emergency Teedwater Pump after a large break LOCA
. A questionable fix for the Containment Building spray system 1The report is reproduced as Exhibit A to the Motion and will be hereinafter cited as "Exh A."
2 Le t t e r , Bellamy to Harrison Ret Inspection No. 50-443/88-A2 (July 7, 1988) (hereinafter referred to and cited as "Letter"). The Intervenors did not include the covering letter as part of Exhibit A to the Motion. ,
3 Exh. A at 4-5.
i
. A lack of effort to locate and isolate the release path; and
. No effort was noted to blowdown Steam Generators to lessen the heat load in containment."4 This "weakness" (as well as others upon which the Intervenors apparently do not base the Motion) was set out in the context of a report which also recited as the "Raa.ulla":
"No violations were identified.
Emergency response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public."3 This conclusion was also expressed essentially verbatim in the Letter.6 Nevertheless, focussing upon the above-quoted 4
EXh. A at 5.
5Exb. A at 1. In addition, the following appeared in Section 6 (Exit Meetina and NRC Critiaua) of the Report "The licensee was informed that previously identified items were adequately addressed and no violations were observed. Although there were areas identified for corrective action, the NRC determined that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee *s performance demonstrated that they could implement their Energency Plan and Energency Plan Implementing Procedures in a nanner which would adeguately provide protective seasures for tho health and safety of the public."
(Emphases supplied).
6"Within the scope of this inspection, no viointions were observed. It was determined that your emergency response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public." Letter at 1.
l l
l i i
1 "weakness," and supported by an affidavit which purports to demonstrate that the "weakness" is more significant than the Staff believed,7 the Intervonors now claim to have just i learned of a significant safety issue which must be !
litigated. For the reasons set forth below, Intervenors i efforts should be found wanting.
i l ARGUNENT
! I. THIS BOARD IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION [
TO GRANT THE RELIEP REQUESTED l
Thim Board, at this juncture, is a board of severely limited jurisdiction. The matters remaining before it, j i
! remain as the result of a remand of an initial decision l 0 i 1
issued some time ago. It is fundamental that when a
- Licensing Board receives a proceeding back on remand from the t i j Appeal Board, its jurisdiction is limited to those issues remanded to its other issues which might have been, or, in i
q fact, were, raised before it may, thereafter, be raised only I '
- i through the vehicle of a petition to the Director of Nuclear i
I f
l 7The affidavit attempts to shrug off the overall J conclusion of the report by making certain assumptions as to j what must have been going through the Staff's collective mind [
} in reaching the conclusions it did. Pollard AII 1 at pp. 8-l
- 9. Whatever qualifications the affiant may have to address i the technical matters he purports to address, psychology and ;
! mindreading are not listed among them. [
l ,
! i l l i
l 1
___i
i i
i* j l
Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 52.206.8 No issue of the i i
i nature here sought to be raised was remanded to this f Licensing Board. Indeed as the Intervenors concede, the j issue was never raised before this Board when it was I
exercising plenary jurisdiction over the proceeding.9 l
{ Therefore, there is no jurisdiction in this Board to [
1 t 1 entertain it now.
I l l II. THE INTERVENORS HAVE FAILED TO I i
SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION l l OF A LATE-FILED CONTENTION.
I !
l A. Introduction. [
1 l i Admission of late-filed contentions in NRC licens3rq ;
- proceedings is governed by 10 CFR 52.714 (a) which requirt.a a [
1 +
s balancing of five factors, each of which is discussed below.
The burden is upon the party proffering the late-filed !
l l
8 carolina Power & Licht co s (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4), A LAB-52 6, 9 NRC 122, 124 (1979); j
]
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB- i l
a 534, 9 NRC 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979). l l
] 9 Motion at 7 n.5. The Intervenors apparently believe [
]
this state of affairs assists their cause. However, since
- this Board would have had jurisdiction to entertain the issue i in the past, and since it was not raised, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's findings as to all issues not l l raised before the Licensing Board encompansed in the i
- outstanding operating license constitutes the finding upon ,
this issue by the Commission. 10 CFR 52.760al 10 CFR 550.57. t
! I l !
! 5 1
i i r i f
l contention to satisfy the balancing test set forth in the f rule.10 i
B. Analysis of the "Five !
Factors."
- i. Good cause, it any, for Failure to File on time ,
f The "Good cause" factor "is a crucial element in the !
r analysis of whether a late-flied contention should be [
l admitted. If the proponent of a contention fails to satisfy }
[
this element of the test, it must make a ' compelling' showing j with respect to the other four factors."11 f With respect the matter at bar, the Intervenors knew or f
should have known of the existence of the issue they seek to [
raise upon receipt by them of the Letter which was sent on July 7, 1988. Accepting the Intervenors' representaticn that I the letter was not received by them until "on or about i
July 15, 1988,n12 this still means that they waited two full months, or until the eve of possible resolution of the remaining issue blocking low-power licensure, before flaing 10D uke Power es. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) , AIAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980).
11 commonwealth Edison connany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244 (1986),
citing, cincinnati Gas and Electric co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-58, 18 NRC 640, 663 (1983); Mississipoi Power and__Liaht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-704, 16 NRC 1725 (1982).
12 Notion at 9.
J 1
I
- the Motion. They argue that the trigger date should be extended to the week of August 15, 1988 on the theory that it was not until their receipt of the "exercise scenario documentation" that they could have "a proper technical understanding" of the significance of the report. This argument rings hollow from a group that has been able to discern contentions by the dozen from webs of gossamer in the past. More importantly we are unadvised as to how the existence of the possible contention had to await the later information when the very basis of the contention was listed under a heading in a Staff document of "weaknesses." No good cause for the delay has been shown. The first factor should weigh against admission.
ii. Availability of other Neans to Protect Petitioners
The Applicants would concede that this (and the fourth factor) favor the Mass AG, as is usually the case. However,
"[t]his factor, like the closely related fourth factor (the extent to which other parties will represent petitioners' interest) is accorded less weight, under established commission precedent, than factors one, three, and five."13 13Commonwealth Edison company (Braidwood Nuclear power Station, Units 1 and 2), C LI - 8 6- 8 , 23 NRC 241, 245 (1986),
citina with approval, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).
iii. The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist in Developing a sound Recor?.
Commission "case law establishes both the importance of this third factor in the evaluation of late-filed contentions and the necessity of the moving party to demonstrate that it has special expertise on the subjects which it seeks to raise. (citation) The Appeal Board has said: 'When a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as l
auch particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony'."14 The Intervanors have merely alleged that they will "(provide) an expert witness" and generally identified the subject matter of che testimony the unnamed witness will give. This hardly meets the standard set forth above, i
l 14corronwealth Edison company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 246 (1986),
- citina with aoproval, Mississiepi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 HRC 1725, 1730 (1982).
I 1
iv. The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Interest Will Be Represented by Existing Parties.
As indicated above in 55,, this factor always favors the petitioner and is entitled to less weight than numbers 1, 3, and 5.
- v. The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation Will Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding.
The injection of a new issue will obviously delay any proceeding. In this case, it has a possibility of delaying the issuance of low power testing authority, and its timing is susceptible of a cynical reading that its filing was solely for that purpose. Obviously it will also broaden the proceeding, as the Intervenors, themselves, concede.15 C. The Balance of the Factors The weightier factors, numbers 1, 3, and 5, all weigh against the Intervenors. Only the two factors which are given less weight, weigh, as they usually do, in their favor.
The balance favors denial of the motion.
15M otion at 11.
9
III. THE MOTION FAIIA TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR REOPENING THE RECORD.
A. The Applicable Regulation.
The Intervenors must satisfy the requirements of the regulation governing reopening of the record in order to succeed herein. This is so because the Commission has ruled that the record in this docket is closed for consideration of new issues.16 Motions to reopen the record are governed by 10 CFR 52.734. That regulation states, in material part:
"(a) A motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence wiki not be granted unless the following criteria are satisfied:
"(1) The motion must be timely, except that an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
"(2) The motion must address a significant safety or environmental issue.
16Public Service Connany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-07 __ NRC , Slip Op. at 3 (Sept. 22, 1988).
t t
i
"(3) The motior must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or '
would have been likely had the newly l proffered evidence been considered i initially."
1 e e e ,
"(d) A motion to reopen which relates to a contention not previously in i controversy among the parties must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely ;
I contentions in 5 2.714 (a) (1) (1) through I (v)."
l
, The movant is required to meet each and every one of the !
) I j criteria set forth above, and "[t]he burden v; satisfying all ;
\
l these requirements is heavy indeed."17 l i !
]
i B. Analysis of the Factors I i
- 1. Timeliness j
. As already set forth in III.B.i. above, the motion is !
I not timely in the circumstances of this case. [
l
) 11. Significance of the Issue.
j To begin with it is noteworthy that the Staff did not l feel that the "weakness" upon which this whole motion is [
based had raised any concern which pravented the Staff from 17 Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric ;
Station, Unit 3), A LA B- 812 , 22 NRC 5, 14 (1985). Accord, r Louisiana _ Power & Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric F
- Station, Unit 3), A LA B-7 8 6, 20 NRC 1087, 1090 (1984) Pacific 4 gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant, j Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340, 1344 (1983); Kansas s Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1) , ALAB-4 62, 7 NRC 320, 328 (1978).
l
finding that the response measures taken were adequate to protect the publiv. This alone makes clear that the issue being raised is not a significant safety issue.
In addition, there are filed herewith the affidavits of James A. MacDonald, Gary J. Kline, and Gregg F. Sessler.
These affidavits address each of the "examples" of situations where the TSC or EOF staffs supposedly "displayed questionable engineering judgement and/or did not address technical concerns." With respect to the release of greater than 7000 curies per second, it appears that (a) the release l
[
figure was supplied by the controllers and, therefore, was j not to be questioned under the rules, (b) a review of exercise events reveals thet, in fact, the lack of l
correlation between the release condition and core cooling indications was recognised and discussed by TSC personnel, and (c) the lack of correlation in no way hindered the ;
response and implementation of emergency procedures.18 The continued efforts to restore the Emergency Feedwater (EFW) pump (a) did not hinder nor would it have effected the response of the TSC to higher priority activities, (b) was j recognised as an effort which may not be needed to mitigate a large break LOCA, and (c) was continued for good and sufficient reason anyway An light of the fact that no higher 18MacDonald Aff. 15 4-6.
f r
j priority item was being interfered with.19 The "questionable fix for the Containment Building spray system" was (a) in i fact a contingency plan developed in case the normal flow f a 5th of the system could not be reestablished (the i
. controllers interceded and declared efforts to reestablish }
the flow to be ineffectual on four occasions), (b) was !
l i
technically sound, and (c) if needed, the fix would have been !
j reviewed by NRC before implementation, a review not carried l l
I iut because the normal flow path was reestablished.20 In fact, a concerted effort was made to locate and isolate the containment bypass leakage but was curtailed because of the i
fact that entry into the areas necessary for ultimate isolation or repair had to be postponed due to high radiation :
) I levels therein.21 As to the assertion that "(n)o offort was i noted to blowdown the Steam Generators to lessen the heat l l
load in the containment," it appears that (a) in fact such an
]
effort was considered and temporarily postponed to assess its t
l possible radiological consequences, (b) prior to completion i l
- of the assessment necessary to determine whether such an ,
i action would lead to introduction of accident levels of l
}
i j radioactivity to areas of the p) ant as yet unaffected, Day #1 19Kline Aff. 11 4-10. [
20S essler Aff. 11 1-11 21K11ne Aff. 11 11-14.
(
I i
! L l I j l 1 !
i )
! I i
_ _ _ _- - _ a
r-O of the exercise ended, and (c) subsequent analysis has shown that such action would have had no practical effect in reducing the temperature and pressure of interest.22 From all of the foregoing it is clear that the issue which Intervenors seek to raise is not a signif.4 cant safety issue.
iii. Difference in Result All of the matters upon which the Intervenors base their Motion have been shown by the affidavits filed herewith to, ,
in fact, be matters which were proper 3y addressed during the exercise and not to have any safety significance. Thus, there is little doubt that the result of the heretofore completed litigation would not change.
iv. Compliance with 10 CFR
%2. 714 (n) (1) (1) -(v) .
As set forth in SII.C. above, the Intervenors have not made the necessary showing under 10 CFR 52.714 (a) (1) (1)-(v) .
22Sessler_611 15 17-21.
i 14 t
CONCLUSION The Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Thoinas U.' DIgnan, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 counsel for Applicants P
i I
i l
)
i I