ML20216D657
| ML20216D657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1999 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Elleman T, Murphy T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#399-20689 99-754-01-LA-R, LA-R, LBP-99-27, NUDOCS 9907300045 | |
| Download: ML20216D657 (23) | |
Text
.-
00CEFTED ossse LBP-99-27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 JLL 28 P3 :47 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION" ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 04, hv -
ADJi^F Before Administrative Judges:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman . I Dr. Thomas S, Elleman Thomas D. Murphy SERVED JUL 2 91999 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-029-LA-R YANKEE' ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 99-754-01-LA-R (Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
License Termination Plan July 28, 1999 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Termination of Proceeding)
This proceeding concerns the adequacy of the License Termination Plan (LTP) submitted by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or Licensee) for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station located in Rowe, Massachusetts. YAEC has withdrawn its current LTP, has indicated that it will file another substantially different LTP at a later undetermined date that could be a decade or more in the future, and has moved to terminate the proceeding.1 For reasons hereafter set forth, we are granting the requested withdrawal and terminating the proceeding.
2 Board Notification (Withdrawal of Application) and Motion To Terminate Proceeding and Dismiss Appeal, dated May 26, 1999 [ Termination Motion).
9007300045 990728 PDR ADOCK 05000029 O PDR 750g
-2 -
- 1. Procedural Backcround. The procedural background to the Licensee's termination motion is set forth in our June 14, 1999 Memorandum and Order (Requesting Replies to NECNP Response to Termination Motion), LBP-99-22, 49 NRC
. There, we determined that, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.107, the Licensing Board rather than the Commission should rule in the first instance on the termination motion, notwithstanding the circumstance that YAEC's stion to terminate was directed to the Commission. .so observed that the Intervenors, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution- (NECNP) and the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN),
were opposing termination absent payment by the Licensee to the Intervenors of specified costs (including attorneys' fees). and performans= by YAEC of certain discovery-related
. activities.2 We iuviLad replies to the NECNP/CAN proposals for payment and performance of specified tasks.
YAEC filed two responses to the NECNP/CAN proposals--
the first accompanied by a motion for leave to reply (filed before we had issued LBP-99-22) and the second a supplemental response covering additional matters raised by LBP-99-22.2 The Franklin Regional Council of Governments 2Intervenors' Opposition to Yankee Atomic Electric Company's [YAEC' s] Motion to Terminate and Proposed Form of Order for. Expenses, Fees and Responses to Discovery, dated June 7, 1999 [ Motion for Conditions).
3 Motion of YAEC.for Leave to Respond to Intervenors'
" Opposition to . .
. Motion to Terminate [Etc.]," dated June 14, 1999 [YAEC Reply-1] ; " Response of YAEC to LBP-99-22,"
dated June 17, 1999 [YAEC Reply-2]. We arant YAEC's request
(FRCOG) filed a response to LBP-99-22 on June 22, 1999
[FRCOG Reply). CAN filed a' reply on June 23, 1999 (CAN Reply). NECNP's reply was filed on June 24, 1999 [NECNP Reply). On' June 29, 1999, YAEC filed a Motion for Leave to Reply to.NECNP's and CAN's Replies, a motion that we orant.4 Finally, on July 6, 1999, the NRC Staff filed its timely response to LBP-99-22, as well as to the replies or responses filed by various other parties [ Staff Response].
Faced with the foregoing plethora of papers, we turn to the substance of the proposels before us.
- 2. The NECNP/CAN DroDosals. As set forth in their 37une 7, 1999 proposal [* Motion for Conditions"), as well as their June 23, 1999 and June 24, 1999 replies, Intervenors are seeking, as a condition of termination, YAEC's payment of attorneys fees and other costs of litigation. In
. addition, NECNP and CAN seek to have YAEC complete the discovery previously requested by NECNP or CAN and to have those responses and documents placed in the local public document room. Finally, they seek to have any termination be "with prejudice" insofar as it would affect the Commission's ruling as to their standing.
In support of this proposal, NECNP/CAN cite the extensive costs of litigating this proceeding that they have l
for us to. accept for filing YAEC Reply-1.
- Motion for Leave to Reply (Intervenors' June 23, 1999, and June 24, 1999, Filingu), dated June 29, 1999 ['YAEC Reply-3).
I l
E 1
\
l.
incurred. They state (backed by an affidavit specifying particular expenses and fees for which they are seeking reimbursement) that they have invested " considerable time and money" for "over a year. "5 They list costs and expenses of $ 15,603 and attorneys' fees of $ 44,254 (442.54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br /> @
100/ hour) , for a total of $ 59,857.5 They claim that at the future date when a new LTP will likely be filed, their expenditures on this proceeding will have gone for naug..t: "Intervenors will not likely be able to use any of the materials or experience they have assembled to date to tackle a new LTP submitted a decade from now."? They assert that, pursuant 10 C.F.R.
S 2.107(a), and in the situation where, as here, the Board has issued a Notice of Hearing, we possess legal authority to condition the termination on YAEC's payment to Intervenors of such costs.
In support of the requested reimbursement, Intervenors portray YAEC's termination as an attempt to impose as much monetary cost as possible on the Intervenors. They characterize the withdrawal as " untimely." They assert YAEC had knowledge of the MARSSIM protocols e more than 5 Motion for Conditions at 1-2.
5Blu at 2, n.1.
71ds.at 3.
eNUREG-1575/ EPA 402-R-97-106, Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), dated December, 1997.
rs
,4~
eighteen months earlier. Adoption of those protocols at this-time caused the LTP'to be abandoned, after Intervenors expended'much time and effort on the proceeding.S "YAEC's decision to defer filing for an entire decade is plainly an attempt to avoid both this (Board's] jurisdiction of tne matter and responding to the Intervenors' legitimate and serious issues . . . .
" 20 The Intervenors go on to assert-that there has been extensive public interest in this proceeding and, in particular, in the information the Intervenors requested by way of-discovery. (That information had not, as of the date of the termination motion, and has not as a result of such motion, yet been provided). The Intervenors also reference the hydrogeological information provided by them as one of the _ bases for their proposed environmental contentions,22 to which (as a result of the termination) no parties have responded and on which we have not acted. (The Environmental' Assessment giving rise to those contentions is based on the current LTP, leading us here to dismiss those proposed contentions as moot.) NECNP/CAN assert that SProposed Findings and Conclusions, attached to Intervenors'. Motion for Conditions, i 1.
2ojBL, 1 3.
22 [NECNP's] Request for Permission to File Contentions and Contentions on the Inadequacy of NRC Staff's April 12, 1999' Environmental Assessment and Finding of'No Significant
' Impact of' Approval of the Yankee Nuclear Power Company's
- [LTP], dated May_17, 1999.
y-i .
I
- "Intervenors (and the public) have not obtained any
-reassurances about the actual levels of contamination" at
- the' site.u =And they call upon YAEC to perform proper hydrogeological studies to fill this information gap. The discovery responses, studies and documents may, in their view, be imposed as a condition _ pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.107(a), and would be both provided to the Intervenors l
and filed in the Local Public Document Room.
- 3. Resconses to NECNP/CAN Proposals. Of the various other parties or participants, only FRCOG Eupports the termination conditions sought by NECNP/CAN. It
( characterizes the sought discovery responses as
'"particularly important" to FRCOG.u l YAEC strongly opposes the proposed termination conditions and seeks our termination of this proceeding "without prejudice." It questions whether we have authority to award costs as a termination condition. Even assuming such authority, it questions whether the costs and fees l should: properly be assessed in this proceeding. YAEC characterizes the expenses incurred by NECNP/CAN as the normal type _of litigation expenses-for which a party would p 'not normally be reimbursed. And it opposes the sought discovery as' inconsistent with the Rules of Practice, which limit the scope of discovery to admitted contentions. With
" Motion for Conditions at 4.
nFRCOG Reply at 4.
I
yy ynn~
I
' ~
n, EC asserts that the
, respect to: applicability.to a new'LTP, YA P would not admitted contentions based on the withdrawn LT Finally, it asserts that standing must-have any relevance. d be tied to each proceeding; whether NECNP orw CAN LTP, woul organizationally qualify for standing regarding a ne in part submitted many years in'to the future, would depend that i on the. makeup'and membership of the organizations at L
d by a new LTP.
time and'whether any member.would be affecte h L The Staff for the most part takes a similar approac ,
The Staff agrees favoring termination *without prejudice." But it l
oceeding.
'that standing is related to a particu ar pr i to points out that no.one has moved for theand, Commiss on .f I
vacate its standing determination-(CLI-98-21) accordingly, that decision remains on the books.
Licensina Board Analysia. It is clear that the 4..
issuance of a Licensing Board'has authority, given its prior to permit YAEC to withdraw its Notice of Hearing, d] may application on "such terms as the -[ Licensing Boar ,
That Rule itself does prescribe." 10 C.F.R. S 2.107 (a) .
but it l not define the conditions that may be imposed, l with manifestly does not preclude either withdrawa h
prejudice, or the payment of costs andii fees as or t e performance of the requested discovery activ t es I
requirements of withdrawal.
YAEC first takes the
- a. Termination with Preiudice. the l
position that we have no authority to terminate I
)
1
e l
proceedings "with prejudice."
It cites the rule itself (10 S 2.107 (a))
as permitting this result only when the C.F.R.
Commissi itself grants termination and then only prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.
In our opinion, YAEC's reading of the rule is tenuous Merely at best, res well as contrary to earlier decisions.
because the rule explicitly permits the Commission at an
(" prior to the issuance o fa early stage of the proceeding notice of hearing") to terminate "with prejudice" does not necessarily or even logically mean that the more general grant of authority to Licensing Boards acting after issuance include similar authority.
of a Notice of Hearing does not At that stage 02 the proceeding, the Licensing Board has a more detailed knowledge of the scope of a proceeding than does the Commission and thus would be in a more appropriate h
position to evaluate whether a termination should be wit prejudice (thus barring future relitigation of similar the Appeal Board previously has issues). In any event, sanctioned a Licensing Board's exploration of the possibility of dismissal of a proceeding with prejudice.
(North Coast Nuclear Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Further, the Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-662, 14 NRC 1125 (1981).
d's l
Appeal Board has explicitly confirmed a Licensing Boar authority under 10 C.F.R. S 2.107 (a) to dismiss with Philadelphia Electric Co.
prejudice where appropriate.
r 9-(Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-657, 14 NRC I
967,.974 (1981).
But we need not here reach the legal scope of the rule, inasmuch as we find no value to the Intervenors (to the extent they seek a "with prejudice" dismissal) of such a dismissal, except perhaps with respect to the Commission's ruling on standing. Dismissal with prejudice would amount to an adjudication on the merits of the admitted contentions. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, 3), LBP-82-21, 16 NRC 1128, 1135 (1982). The contentions that we admitted were focused on the current LTP and alleged deficiencies and inadequacies therein; almost
- per force they could have no relevance to a future LTP based on a differing survey methodology."
As for standing, the Commission's ruling in CLI-98-21 could be of utility to the Intervenors if they were to challenge a future LTP. As both the Staff and YAEC point out, however, standing is unique to every proceeding, depending in part on injury caused by a specific activity (such as an LTP), the identity of the person or group cln' ming to be affected thereby and current judicial and l
l "We express no opinion with respect to YAEC's termination-motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of YAEC's appeal to the Commission without prejudice. We lack jurisdiction to consider that motion, or the Intervenors' attempt to have the appeal dismissed with prejudice. That motion is currently before the Commission.
~
?l l
administrative rulings on standing.25 We also believe that a "with prejudice" termination with respect to standing would ignore the essential usefulness of standing to determine whether persons may have an actual interest in a particular proceeding.25 Although the Commission could treat the termination as "with prejudice" with respect to its standing rulings, we lack authority to grant such a dismissal because CLI-98-21 was a ruling of the Commission itself.
However, we note that, as both the Staff and NECNP point out, there has thus far been no motion to vacate the standing rulings in CLI-98-21." We believe that those rulings represent a useful discussion of the basic elements of standing and can serve as guidance to the Boards and litigants generally as to the proper scope of requirements for standing. For that reason, we believe that the best course here would be for the Commission to let stand its decision in CLI-98-21 and for the Board to refrain from imposing a "with prejudice" termination with respect to standing.
15YAEC Reply-2 at 2-3 ; Staff Response at d-7 and n.8.
The Staff points out instances where the Commission has not required a full demonstration of standing by parties seeking to intervene in proceedings related to one in which they have been admitted. Staff Response at 6.
15Even though the scope of a proceeding on a future LTP is likely to be similar to the scope of this proceeding, the makeup of the intervening organizations may well change.
27NECNP Reply at 3; Staff Response at 5-6.
L
4 Reimbursement of fees and costs.
The heart of the b.
NECNP/CAN proposals is their request that termination be conditioned on reimbursement to them of their costs and fees of participation. YAEC asserts that it is doubtful that the Commission has authority to condition withdrawal on the payment of fees and expenses. It states that we could not order YAEC to pay fees and expenses and there is " grave l doubt" whether we could condition withdrawal on such payment, citing an early decision in Pacific Gas & Electric Unit 1), LBP-83-2, 17 NRC Cg. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, 45, 54 (1963). It adds that the Commission has never It goes on to demonstrate why, awarded such fees and costs.
even if we had the authority, imposing costs and fees as a condition of withdrawal would be inappropriate.
According to YAEC, the payment of litigation expenses j as a condition of termination without prejudice is limited to cases in which the intervenor has already prevailed on specific aspects of the application (which has not happened here).
YAEC distinguiahes the cases cited by NECNP/CAN as based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are not where applicable here, and as premised on civil litigation, different factors are involved, particularly a lack of the public interest function that governs NRC proceedings.
1 I
Finally, YAEC characterizes the result of withdrawal as a
\
[m,-- ]
!- I
?
..e
! l l that they victory for the Intervenors, producing the resu t 1 explicitly sought.28 In the YAEC's analogiec are not entirely appropriate.
the Intervenors are seeking not to defeat the first place, LTP (as YAEC claims) but rather to assure that whatever LTP ld protect its might be adopted includes provisions that wou as does YAEC, that it could withdraw interests. To cssert, d thereafter any LTP with which it does not entirely agree an f li that the replace it with another is essentially to c a m l The Commission hearing process can and should be ignored. I has emphatically ruled to the contrary: :
it appropriate . . . to use the i l
The Commission [ finds) amendment process for approval of terminal
[ license) including the associated opportunity for a ific plans, hearing, Lo_ allow oublic particioation on. the . . spec If the h
prder reauired for license termination S 50.82 (a) (9) (ii) , then .LTP the tion of were al l
requirements of 10 C.F.R. i senaof a l subsequent implementation of the LTP and term l the POL could result in the inappropriate re ea health and i site that still poses a threat to the public for safety . .
. a decision [ denying YAEC's requestwo approval of the LTP) the LTP did not comply with 10 C.F.R.and would require Ya and/or (10) ,the LTP in a way that would (emphasis satisfy the requ supplied).
those regulations . . .
D ar Station),
(Yankee Nuclear Yankee Atomic Electric Co 48 NRC 185, 196, 209-10 (1998).
CLI-98-21, ears l
Moreover, another Licensing Board determination app d costs in
! to find authority for payment of fees an Appeal Board i
I appropriate circumstances, based in part on 14 an NRC at 1135, ALAB-662, supra, observation in North Coast, t
2sYAEC Reply-1 at 4. '
l-
U l i
q l
l 13 - !
n.11. Fqg Duke Power'Comoany (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1,'2'and 3), LBP-82-81, 16 NRC 1128, 1140-41 (1982) l (findingLpayment of' attorneys' fees to be authorized although unwarranted in the particular circumstance). As that Board' remarked, "[i] s there something about money that ;
3 takes reimbursement of litigation expenses out of the bank l
\
of possible conditions available to avoid legal harm to an ;
adversary?" Id at 1140. The Board ruled that " [t] he ;
i absenc'e of specific statutory authority does not prevent ;
boards from exercising reasonable authority necessary to carry out_its responsibilities and a money condition is not necessarily barred from consideration." Id. We find that- )
authority to be persuasive and will treat reimbursement of l
coots and expenses as.a condition that, if warranted, we !
could impose under 10 C.F.R. S 2.107 (a) .
To determine whether litigation fees and expenses should be reimbursed, we would have to find that there has i been: legal harm to the Intervenors caused by some activity or action of the Licensee. The prospect of a second proceeding, standing alone, is not a legally cognizable i harm. . Perkins, LBP-82-81, supra, 16 NRC at 1135.
I The Intervenors, however, seemingly perceive that YAEC's withdrawal at this time was designed both to cause NECNP/CAN added expenses by requiring duplicative expenses
'for them to protect their interests at some future date and to. permit-_YAEC in the future to confront a different 1
l n
I.
o Licensing Board more inclined than are we to accept their presentations on various issues. In short, they portray YAEC's withdrawal at this time as a type of forun shopping.
In our view, the inferences drawn by NECNP/CAN are unwhrranted. YAEC appears to have valid, if not compelling, reasons for not withdrawing its current LTP until this time.
The major expressed reason for the withdrawal--the planned substitution of site survey methodologies--was based on the release of the MARSSIM methodology in December 1997. This methodology had been jointly developed by numerous Federal agencies called upon to conduct site surveys--the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, as well as NRC--and thus would avoid some of the multi-agency criticism to which the earlier methodology in NUREG/CR-5849 [5849] had been subject.
According to YAEC, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also mncurs in the use of the MARSSIM technology. According to YAEC, "MARSSIM is considered to be more rigorous than the 5849 methodology, and it enjoys a universality of approval that the 5849 Methodolcgy never apparently achieved." YAEC Reply-1 at 2.
The MARSSIM methodology is both lengthy and complex--
its text is more than an inch of double-sided pages. It is not surprising to us that it took YAEC almost 18 months to determine that it would incorporate it into its LTP and would require a new LTP based on the complexities involved.
l L
- j' . t
._ 15 -
Moreover,:under NRC regulations, YAEC is permitted to L Lwithhold filing of any LTP until two years prior to license 1
termination,.which is not predicted to take place for many years- "at-least-a decade,"~according to YAEC (Termination FMotion at n.1). See also 10 C.F.R. S 50.82 (a) (9) (i) .
It may be true-that YAEC's withdrawal of'its current LTP at this time may result.in the Intervenors' expending more in total than they otherwise would have spent in litigating'the adequacy of the current LTP. The opposite may also be true--Intervenors may find less fault with a new LTP than they'do with the current one. Further, although
-YAEC may not have agreed with all the rulings of this, Board, we find no evidence at all to indicate that their withdrawal of the current LTP'was motivated by forum shopping.
In any event, the litigation fees and costs for which NECNP/CAN seek reimbursement seem to be no more than the legitimate expenses of litigating a complex proceeding, for which a party would not normally be reimbursed. We believe that YAEC did not take steps that would have reduced costs
~
to Intervenors--such as awaiting the outcome of its motion !
for reconsideration of Contention 4 prior to its filing of an' appeal of all. contentions to the Commission. (We would have postponed the effective date of our decision on-contentions to perm t Y7dX: to seek. reconsideration of one of i
I them'and nonetheless preserve.its appellate rights.) But YAEC complied with all regulatory requirements in this I
l
regard. Given our view that there has been no substantial evidence brought to our attention that YAEC intentionally caused the Intervenors to suffer unwarranted or unusual litigation costs, we are hereby denying as unwarranted the NECNP/CAN request for us to condition termination on reimbursement of fees and costs.
- c. Continuation of Discoverv. As a condition of i
termination, NECNP/CAN would have us require YAEC to complete its responses to the Intervenors' interrogatories and requests for documents that were pending on the date of the termination motion and to provide the results to the Intervenors and to the NRC for placement in the local public document. room. Further, the Intervenors ask us to order YAEC to undertake hydrogeological studies in response to the Intervenors' conclusions set forth as a basis for their proposed contentions on the environmental assessment (which, earlier in this Order, we have dismissed as moot)n, l 1
As summarized earlier, FRCOG strongly supports the !
l discovery-related conditions for termination. YAEC and the )
i Staff each oppose their adoption. We conclude that, j I
although 'se would have the authority under 10 C.F.R. S 2.107 l to condition termination on YAEC's performance of the I
requested discovery-related conditions, the proposed conditions are not warranted or appropriate in the present l
factual situation.
I
" Motion for Conditions at 12, 13.
l
)
f.
Discovery, of course, is peculiarly related to particular proceedings.and particular contentions. In a proceeding of this type, discovery is not available absent a Licensing Board's approval of particular contentions. 10 C.F.R. S . 2. 74 0 (b) . The scope of discovery is confined tc the contentions that have been admitted.
In the context of this proceeding, the Licensee would have been required to respond to such discovery requests as are " relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding"--i.e., admitted contentions with respect to the Licensee's LTP under review.2o Information and documents that may be relevant to a new LTP to be submitted some time in the future are manifestly not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding. (To the same effect, the information and documents requested here could not under present rules be relevant to a new LTP that is not under consideration at this time.) l We note that, in one proceeding, a Licensing Board conditioned the termination of a proceeding on the preservation by the applicant (for a construction permit) of discovery documents. Egg Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), LBP-83-2, 17 NRC 45, l
53 (1983). In thtt case, the parties had undertaken )
extensive discovery involving production of in excess of a d10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (b) (1) . We express no opinion as to
[
i the propriety of any of the particular discovery requests
! for which NECNP/CAN as well as FRCOG seek responses.
- 7 -
18 -
.The applicant itself had million and a half documents.
proposed the preservation of discovery documents for a reasonable period of time.
i h ble from those l
- The facts in Stanislaus are distingu s a Documents already produced were involved, now before.us. filed.
rather than documents for which a request has been it Given the likelihood of the same construction-perm and application being refiled in'the foreseeable future, in the given the concurrence of_the applicant Licensing and StaffBoard-h
-proposal, the condition was believed by t e to serve a legitimate and.useful purpose.
In contrast, requiring the not-yet-undertaken discovery dition responses requested by the Intervenors herefas a con l purpose of termination would not appear to serve any use u t in this proceeding and would not be authorized with respec We are_thus denying the request.
to'a future proceeding. i is, in Intervenors' request for hydrogeological stud es less warranted the context of NRC's discovery rules, even The studies being sought than the other discovery requests. ressed as a would be in response to scientific opinions exp ruled, basis for proposed contentions on which we have The never Land which we are dismissing as moot by_this Order.
ry rules i
studies would be outside the scope of the d scove i d contention.
- because they would not even bear on an adm tte nors' request for
-We are'accordingly denying the Interve hydrogeological studies.
., +
forth public-interest Finally, Intervenors have set reasons why the discovery they seek and the studies they i i wish to have performed should be included as a term nat on can find no justification for condition. We, however, that is essentially outside the granting a discovery request scope of the discovery rules governing this proceeding.
Intervenors in this proceeding have
- 5. Conclusion.
i played a useful role in pointing out possible deficienc es We commend their efforts in doing so.
in the LTP before us.
However, the proceeding has not yet progressed to the stage li at which we could ascertain the legitimacy of their c a ms.
for an expressed rationale YAEC has now withdrawn the LTP, ibly that we find reasonable if not compelling and poss premised in part on the criticisms raised by the We are accordingly granting YAEC's termination 1 Intervenors.
imposing any motion without prejudice and without conditions.n (which it is l nIn submitting an LTP in the futurethe Licensee may wish to !
required by regulation to do),further litigation of the type involved (including l preclude or limithere by consulting CAN and FRCOG) priorpersons interese.ed to such .
representatives of NECNP, Consultation among the f parties ble toin the case of j submission.
the LTP being reviewed here might have been pre era !
litigation as a means In that of resolving the questions TP raised by the contentions.
appear to us to have focused on the clarity of the resolved through minor negotiation.
- 6. Order.
F For the reasons set forth above, it is, this 28th day of July, 1999, ORDERED:
- 1. The Intervenors proposed late-filed contentions, i
dated May 17, 1999, are hereby dismissed as moot.
- 2. The Licensee's motions for us to accept for filing i its replies dated June 14, 1999 [YAEC Reply-1] and June 29, 1999 [YAEC Reply-3], and the Intervenors' requests for us to accept for filir.g their replies dated June 23 and 24, 1999 (CAN reply; NECNP Reply) are hereby aranted.
- 3. Intervenors' Motion for Conditions, dated June 7, 1999, is hereby denied.
- 4. The motion of YAEC to terminate this proceeding without prejudice is hereby granted. (To the extent YAEC's termination motion seeks dismissal of its appeal to the Commission, that matter is still pending before the Commission and is subject to Commission action.)
- 5. This Memorandum and Order is effective immediately and will become the final order of the Commission in this matter forty (40) days after its issuance date unless any party petitions for Commission review in accordance with 10 l C.F.R. S 2.768, or unless the Commission takes review sua sponte. Any party may file a petition for review within i
fifteen (15) days of service of this Memorandum and )
i 1
s.
Order, conforming to the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R.
S 2.786(b)'.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~
> a of Clarle's Bechhoefer, Cha man l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i
i
'& /, l Dr. Thomas F. Elleman CS !
l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/,}b j
/l -; , , ; . . ll}l fur n.,~
Thomas D. Murphy I ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
[
Rockville, Maryland- l July 28, 1999 1
i j
i
! l l
i- l l
I
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Matter of )
)
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-029-LA l
)
(Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING) (LBP-99-27) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec.
2.712.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Thomas S. Elleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 704 Davidson Street Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Raleigh, NC 27609 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Harmon, Curran, Spielberg Mail Stop - O-15 B18 & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036
3,,
,. 4 '
2 u
' Docket No. 50-029-LA Thomas Dignan, Esq. Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Main Street One Intemational Place P.O. Box 566 Boston, MA 02110 - Putney, VT 05346 James L. Perkins, President Adam Laipson New England Coalition on . Franklin Regional Council Nuclear Pollution, Inc.. of Govemments P.O. Box 545 - 425 Main St.
Brattleboro, VT 05302 Greenfield, MA 01301 Samuel H. Lovejoy, Chairman, FRPB Deborah B. Katz, President Franklin Regional Council Citizens Awareness Network, Inc.
of Governments P.0, Box 3023 425 Main St. Charlemont, MA 01339 Greenfield, MA 01301 l/ L /
Office of the Secretay & the Comrtission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 29 day of July 1999 c
I i
L