Motion to Admit Exercise Contention Or,In Alternative,To Reopen Record.* Board Should Admit Contention Set Forth as Exhibit 1.Affidavit of Rd Pollard EnclML20154G584 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Seabrook ![NextEra Energy icon.png](/w/images/9/9b/NextEra_Energy_icon.png) |
---|
Issue date: |
09/16/1988 |
---|
From: |
Backus R, Brock M, Traficonte J, Weiss E BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, HAMPTON, NH, HARMON & WEISS, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
---|
To: |
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
---|
Shared Package |
---|
ML20154G589 |
List: |
---|
References |
---|
CON-#388-7092 OL, NUDOCS 8809210018 |
Download: ML20154G584 (14) |
|
|
---|
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
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mg
< 7d 2' DCD EiEO UWRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .g gp g pg g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY and LICENSING BOARD OF8K.,JT.: i .<
GOCni.iM L . rm Before Administrative Judges: *
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
In the matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL ^
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) (Onsite EP)
. NEW HAMPSHIRE, ni al. ) September 16, 1988 i
)
(Seabrook Station, ) -
Units 1 and 2) )
1 )
)
l MOTION TO ADMIT EXERCISE CONTENTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REOPEN THE RECORQ I
INTRODUCTION The Massachusetts Attorney General ("Mass AG"), New England Coalition Against Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL") and the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire ("Intervenors") file this motion with the onsite Licensing Board to admit the contention set forth in full i.t Exhibit 1 attached hereto. In the alternative, the Intervenors seek to have this Board reopen the record for the purpose of ,
admitting this contention which raises an issue not previously in controversy between the parties.
i l0 000916 khk92[@@CK0500043 o
PD
- bse3
\
J THE CONTEllTIQtLAT_ISSilE On review of the exercise conducted at the SeLbrook Nuclear Power Station on June 27 - 29, 1966, it appears that serious defects and inadequacies exist in the licensee's current onsite emergency response staff including the Technical Support Center
("TSC") and Emergency Operating Facility ("EOF") staff, with
~
regard to their fundamental capacities to comprehend and diagnoso existing plant conditions and to identify and perform the necessary and essential corrective actions in the event of a nuclear accident as prescribed in the Seabrook Station Radiological Plan and Emergency Operating Pr..cedures. .
These -
defects and inadequacies in the current staff reflect an inadequate staff training program. They provide concrete evidence that the present predicament in which Public Service of New Hampshire ("PSNH"), the Lead Owner of Seabrook, finds ,
itself has had a deleterious effect on the quality and competence of the existing Seabrook Staff.I' Moreover, it is 1/ The Chief Executive Officer of PSNH, Robert J. Harrison, filed an affidavit with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire on August 12, 1988. At paragraph 9.1 Harrison stated:
Instability in the willingncur, er ability of Public Service ;
and other Joint Owners to meet tneir financial '
responsibilities to the Seabrook project jeopordizes the confidence and morale of the existing staff at Seabrook station.
The present levels of staff competence revealed by the June exercise may reflect personnel changes as well as the effects of lowered confidence and morale among the remaining staff.
-2 -
1
y IA I
obvious that a poorly trained onsite emergency staff unable to quickly and accurately interpret the reactor's status and take appropriate and required mitigating actions represents a serious and unacceptable increased level of risk to the public particularly under conditions of low power operation. Egg NRC Final Rule, 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, 30234 (July 13, 1982)(becease "operators should have sufficient time to prevent a radioactive release from occurring" at low power operation, only a finding I as to adequacy of onsite but not offsite emergency planniny and preparedness is required), i JURISDICTION .
This newly filed contencion arises out of the June 1988 exercise which included in addition to an exercise of the af' site plans of the State of New Hampshire and the utility for the Seabrook 2pZ, an exercise of the Licensee's own QDsite Seabrook Station Emergency plan. As a consequence, this contention is appropriately filed at this juncture with this l onsite Board.A#
l 1/ Ostensibly, the offsite Board has taken jurisdiction over .
the litigation of the June 1988 oxercise. However, the offsite J Board indicated in its July 29, 1988 Order ruling on the admissibility of certain contentions filed in respond to the SpMC, that its jurisdiction wa- limited to purely offaite 4
emergency planning issues, ar.d did not extend to onsite emergency planning issues even if they had offsite planning a consequences. Moreover, this exercise contention runs to a material issue involved in the authorization to issue a low l power license, a subject historically within the province of
< this Board.
i l
l
-- , - . ~
l 4
THE CONTENTION IS TIMELY FILED t This contention should be admitted for adjudication because it clearly identifies the regulations that are violated, describes in detail the nature of that violation ' and A F
provides the requisite factual basis and specificity to insure proper notice to the Staff and Applicants of the matters to be litigated. Moreover, the contention is timely filed and not subject to any higher standard for admissibility.A' That this contention is timely filed flows from the following considerations:
- 1) 10 CFR 50.47(d) makes clear that a low power license- '
may issue only after the NRC has determined that the "state of i
l onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken."
~
(emphasis supplied), i l
1/ As an "exercise" contention, the attached contention ;
- identifies planning standards set forth at 10 CFR 50.47(a), !
(b) and (d) and Appendix E and avers that the actual conduct of d
the exercise has revealed fundamental defects or flaws n the l state of emergency preparedness as to those standards.
i j 1/ Two distinct out-of-time arguments might be raised: 1) the
' l exercise was on June 27 - 29, 1988 and this contention is filed ,
on September 16; and 2) a pID on onsite issues has been issued
, and the record "closed" as to the matters raised in this l contention. On the first point, the deadline for "exercise ,
contentions" is September 21, 198f.. The Intervenors file this single contention, as it were, a few days early because of
- their increasing concern about the possibility of precipitous l
- action resulting in low power operation. The text above l j addressr3 the second point in extended detail, t l
I 1
l.
.- . , - , , . . - -, ..y--- . -- , - _ , , ~ . - ,-_.m -, _ ___-,,-__- - ,- _ -
,.,-_-_yv, .,...y-,_w%.-m y,,._,,_c,v--
- 2) This determination is made by the NRC on the basis of
- an evaluation and review not only of the licensee's onsite plan
! but of the arercise ni that plan. First, the finding required 1,
i is that adequate protective measures can "and will" be taken, l
indicating that the implementation capability of the onsite plan is at issue. Second, 50.47(d) states further that "[t]he NRC will base this finding on its assessment of the applicant's emergency plans against the pertinent standards in paragraph (b) of this section and Appendiz E of this part." 50.47(b)(14) states that "(pletiodic axercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities -
Appendix E states that the licensee's emergency "plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of emergency preparedness exercises as follows: Exercises shall test the
( adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and i
methods. . . . and ensure that emergency organization personnel I f are familiar with their duties." Appendix E. IV. F. Third, l
the Staff's Standard Review plan makes clear that onsite preparedness findings require review of licensee plan exercises in addition to the evaluation of the plans themselves. Een Safety Evaluation Report ("SER"), HUREG 0896 (March 1983) st 13-20 which states that an onsite preparedness adequacy finding requires "(aleceptable findings from an onsite appraisal to esta'blish that the applicant's plan is capable of being implemented." As a consequence, the licensee's onsite plan
4 exercise results are relevant to a material issue necessarily addressed and decided by the Commission prior to the issuance of a low power license.
- 3) It follows, therefore, that the Intervenors have a right rooted in the Atomic Energy Act to a hearing on the issue of whether the exercise of the licensee's onsite emeroency glan does or does no t _ rey _e a l I f undAmen t a l flaw in that ol_an and that an opportunity for such hearing must be provided prior to the issuance of a low power license. San Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437, 1443 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("UCS 4
- v. NRC"). -
t
- 4) It also follows from UCS v. NRC, id. at 1443-1444 that hearing rights that attach to an emergency plan exercise may i
not be lawfully restricted by requiring an intervenor to seek I to reopen closed proceedings in order to secure those rights if no earlier opportunity to raise issues presented by the relevant exercise was provided.
- 5) Finally, the June 27 - 29, 1988 exercise of the I
licensee's onsite emergency plan is the only relevant exercise I l
on the basis of which the Commision could now find that for i purposes of low power operation there is reasonable assurance t
- that the state of onsite emergency preparedness is adequate.
a) There have been earlier exercises of the ,
l Licensee's onsite emergency plans. Ett SER, tUREG 0896, Supp. !
4 (May, 1986) at 13-8. These exercises were reviewed and evaluated and a finding made by the NRC Staff at that time that l
l
e licensee onsite emergency preparedness was acceptable and met '
the standard for issuance of the low-power license. SER, Supp.
4 at 13 -17.E#
b) floweve r , at least until a low power license actually issues, each licensee onsite plan exercise is and should be treated by the NRC as superceding its predecessor for purposes of satisfying the requirement that there be adequate '
licensee onsite preparedness. First, Appendix E requires that l
the licensee plan be exercised yearly. If a low power license ,
4 has not issued within a year of such an exercise, a new q exercise would be required for this pertinent Appendix E
- standard to be met as is required by 50.47(d). Obviously, this required new exercise would be evaluated by the NRC and form the basis of any finding that would support subsequent issuance of a low power license. Second, an adequate exercise of onsite emergency staff two or three years ago does not support a present finding of adequate preparedness if a later exercise reveals fundamental flaws in the training of the present staff ;
and a current inability to implement the licensee's onsite 5/ This Board in its March 1987 partial Initial Decision at 67 '
also reiterated that the "state of onsite emergency (
preparedness" met the applicable standard and that a low-power '
licenae was, therefore, authorized. This Board's iteration of !
the earlier May, 1986 Staff conclusion was not itself a !
) "finding" on the record. In fact, no contention was ever
) before this Board on this issue. Thus, as a technical matter, this issue was never jurisdictionally shifted for purposes of i
10 CFR 50.57(c) from the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to this Board. As a result, no record before this Board opened or closed on this issue.
lI i
L i
i,
plan. Thus, a subsequent fundamentally flawed exercise musi form the basis of an NRC finding that onsite preparedness is t not adequate because any other finding will simply be unsupported by the record and otherwise be arbitrary and capricious. Third, the NRC evaluation document generated after l the June 27 - 29, 1988 licensee onsite plan exercise stated:
Although there ere areas identified for corrective action, the NRC team determined that within the scope and limitations of the scenario the Licensee's performance demonsttated that they could implement their i Emergency plan . . . in a manner waich would l adequately provide protective measuras for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee management acknowledged the -
findings . . . . (Report No. 50-443/88-09 at 6 attached as Exhibit A to Affidavit of Robert rollard submitted with the Contention) i c) As a result, any NRC finding of adequate licensee onsite emergency preparedness which would support the issuance ;
of a low power license pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c) would now be based on the June 27 -29, 1988 exercise and the NRC's inspection report. !
- 6) Because the June, 1988 exercise is the relevant !
exercise with regard to the issue of onsite preparedness and this issue is material to low-power licensing AL_ar.Anoded2Rd by_the commission, the Intervenors have a right to fully ;
i litigate the gnsite planning aspects of that exercise prior to i l
low-power operation. To require an otherwise well-pleaded J
l l
l
contention presenting these issues to meet further or higher standards of admissibility based on some notion that the opportunity to raise these issues has long since come and gone in light of earlier exercices which are now !.rrelevant to licensing would deny those participational rigris, REQPIllillG _THE RECORQ In the alternative, this prof erred contention meets 'te procedural standards for reopening a record to admit a late-filed contention after the issuance of a partial initial decision. 10 l'FR S 2.734 and S 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v). -
The 5-Part Late-Filed Contention Standard ($ 2.71413)(11)
(i) As noted, as an exercise contention this contention is timely filed although it is flied af ter an onsite pID has issued. Even if it is deemed to be late-filed, there is good cause for the failure to file on time. This contention obviously could not have been filed before the results of the June 27-29, 1988 cxercise, on whic% any issuance of a Seabrook low power license will now be based, became availab10. The llRC inspection report referenced in the contention and in the accompanying Pollard Affidavit was received by the Intervenors or or about July 15, 1988. The exercise scenario documentation (the 1988 FEMA /!lRC Graded Exercise) which provides the factual context for a proper technical understanding of the Station i
1
Staff's actions and responses was not received by the Mass AG until the week of August 15, 1988. Finally, as noted above, by order of the offsite Licensing Bosrd dated August 19, 1988, the deadline for submission of exercise contentions was set at l September 21, 1988.
(ii) There is no means other than by filing and admission
~
of this contention whereby the Interveners' interest in i ensuring that the licensee's onsite Station Staff is adequately I
trained and able to respond to an accident will be protected
, before the issue of a low power licenso. The NRC Staff, acting i
l through the Inspection Report has already made its finding on.
4 July 7, 1988 that notwithstanding the noted exercise weaknesses, the level of onsite preparedness is adequate for low power operation.
2 (iii) The Intervenors will contribute to the development 1
of a sound record by providing an expert witness who will
! analyze the emergency response actions taken by che Seabrook Station staff and describe in detail the manner in which those l actions reflect the failure of that staff to comprehend the 1
i significance of plant conditions and identify the appropriate j measures needed to prevent any further plant deterioration and/or further offsite radiological releases.
(iv) No other party has raised or is raising this issue.
I (v) At the moment, admission of this contention will not i
- delay issuance of a low power license which is presently stayed
- - lo -
i
pending resolution of the Massachusetts EpZ siren issues. The contention will broaden the proceeding to encompass the issue of licensee onsite preparedness but is an area absolutely vital to the safety of the public particularly in the absence of adequate offsite emergency plans during low power operation.
The Standard for_Re-Ocenina the Record (E 2.7341 (1) A motion at this juncture to reopen the record for the purpose of litigating an exercise contention arising out of the June 27-29, 1988 exercise is timely flied.
(2) The inadequate state of onsite preparedness at the -
Seabrook Station raises fundamental and significant safety and environmental issues particularly for low power reactor operation. If, as alleged, the Station response staff is not adequately trained to respond appropriately to a reactor accident then the public is directly put at risk by low power operation.
(3) Finally, although no contention had been admitted raising the issue of the adequacy of the state of onsite training and preparedness, had the issue been open before this Board, the evidence set forth in the accompanying affidavit would have likely resulted in the absence of a finding by this Board that onsite preparedness is adequate it the Seabrook Station.
o For all of the reasons set forth above, this Board should admit the Contention set forth as Exhibit 1.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON SEACOAST AliTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE ATTOR!iEY GEllERAL COMMOliWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
/ -
John Traficonte Robert A. Backus, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Bachus, Meyer & Solomon Nuclear Safety Unit 116 Lowell Street One Ashburton Place P.O. Box 516 Boston, MA 02108 Manchester, ilH 03105 (617) 727-2200 (603) 668-7272 TOWN OF HAMPTON, 11EW HAMPSHIRE NEW EtiGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTIOtt Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Ellyn Weiss, Esquire' Shaines & McEachern Harmon & Weiss 24 Maplewood Avenue 2001 "S" Street N.W.
P.O. Box 360 Suite 430 Portsmouth, tiH 03801 Washington, DC 20009 (603) 436-3110 (202) 328-3500 Dated: September 16, 1988 f
l
[
EXHIBIT 1 J01NT INTERVENORS ON-SITE EXERGSMRIEhrION L The present state of onsite emergency preparedness at r
Seabrook, as revealed by the results of the June 27 - 29, 1988 ;
graded exercise does not provide reasonr/ ole assurance that adequate protective measu.res can and will be taken in the event I
- of a radiological emergency pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(d), and i 1
does not support a finding that low power operation "can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the !
public" pursuant to $50.57(a)(3). That exercise disclosed l
] .
l 1
fundamental deficiencies in the onsite energency plan (the i
j Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency plan, tl "plan") with [
respect to the following pertinent planning stant a- $s:
i 1) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) which requires "adequate otaffing (
)
] to provide initial facility accident response in key functional '
areas . . . at all times, (that] timely augmentation of {
I j response capabilities is available and (that] the interfaces i
among various onsite response activities and offs!te support !
t and response activities are specified";
] f
] 2) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) which requires that "(pletiodic I exercises (be) conducted to evaluate major portions ot' l J emergency response capabilities . . . and (that) deficiencies
- I l identified as a result of exercises or drills (bel corrected";
j 3) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) which requires that
- "(r}adiological emergency response training (be] provided to
) those who may be called on to assist in an emergency"; and ,
l F
I 3
i.
i l
- 4) 10 CFR Appendix E, IV.A.2a. which requires that a l
licensee onsite emergency plan provide a "detailed discussion of: a. Authorities, responsibilities and duties of the !
individual (s) who will take charge during an emergency"; and f IV. F. which requires that "[e]xercises shall test the adequacy ;
of timir.g and content of implementing procedures and methods .
. . and ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties."
BASIS: The Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency plan provides for the establishment at the time of an emergency of the Technical Support Center ("TSC") and the Emergency Operations Facility ("EOF"). PlanatSections6.1.1and6.1.5 The personnel at the TSC and EOF are expected to use the emergency operating procedures to assist in recognizing an emergency condition in order to prescribe the actions necessary to correct the conditior, plan at 1-2. A demonstration of the ability of these personnel to analyne station conditions and parameter trends and to develop potential solutions for placing the reactor in a safe stable condition was one of the objectives of the June, 1988 graded exercise in order to establish the adequacy of this fundamental aspect of onsite emergency preparednoss. As described in more detail in the accompanying Affidavit of Robert D. pollard, which is incorporated herein by reference as a portion of the basis of this contention, the exercise revealed that fundamental deficiencies exist in the current state of onsite emergency preparedness precluding the flRC finding which is prerequisite to issuance of a low power license.