ML18017A813
| ML18017A813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-577, NUDOCS 8002130315 | |
| Download: ML18017A813 (66) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar HFmEo JAN ~ 0 'i9%
gO~
~pQV'O
@g c
@ C+@@
~0 In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4)
Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Mr. Edwin J. Reis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
DECISION January 29, 1980
-(ALAB-'577)
This construction permit proceeding involves the four units of the proposed Shearon Harris nuclear facility to be located in North Carolina.
In January 1978, the Licensing Board rendered an initial decision in which it authorized the construction of the facility.
LBP-78-4, 7
1/
Later that year, on the appeal of the joint intervenors, 1/
Conservation Council of North Carolina and Wake En-vironment, Inc.
The appeal was confined to a single
- issue, the need for the power to be generated by the facility.
1 8662l g6
we affirmed.
ALAB-490, 8
NRC 234.2/
What now brings the proceeding back to us is a supple-mental initial decision rendered by the Licensing Board last July, following a further evidentiary hearing directed by a Commission order issued subsequent, to ALAB-490.
See CLI-78-18, 8
NRC 293 (1978).
In that supplemental
- decision, the Board imposed an additional condition upon the Shearon Harris construction permits.
Asserting that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in taking that action,,the NRC staff has appealed and asked us to strike the condition.
None of the other parties to the proceeding has filed a brief in response to the appeal (although the applicant advised us by letter, without elaboration, that it agrees with the staff).
At our invitation, however, the Board below recently supplied us 2/
The affirmance embraced the need-for-power-issue raised hy the appeal, as well as (on sna ~sonte review) all other issues considered by the Lz.cens-ing Board except for that of the environmental effects of radon (Rn-222) generated in the course of the mining and milling of uranium.
Decision on that generic matter was deferred pending the out-come of our exploration of it. in other licensing proceedings.
See 8
NRC at 241-42, 244.
An evi-dentiary hearing on radon releases is now scheduled for late February.
Sge Philadel hia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unz.ts 2 and 3),
ALAB 566'0 NRC (October lip 1979)
~
3/
with a memorandum in elaboration of the basis for its con-elusion that it possessed the authority to impose the con-dition in question.4/
A.
The background of the present controversy is this.
When the proceeding was first before it, the Licensing Board requested the staff to address certain specific ques-tions relating to its assessment of the management capabil-ities of the applicant.
The staff did so through the testi-mony of two supervisory inspectors assigned to the Commission's regional office having territorial jurisdiction over North Carolina.
Those witnesses alluded to certain problems which had been encountered at other nuclear facilities owned and operated by this applicant.
They went on, however, to take note of corrective measures which the applicant had taken to obviate a repetition of those problems and stated that they did not have any present concerns regarding the applicant's ability to manage the construction and operation of Shearon Harris.
In its initial decision, the Board cited this testi-mony and expressly noted that it was "satisfied with the re-sponses to its questions regarding management LBP-78-4,
~su ra, 7
NRC at 108-09.
4/
LBP-80-3, 11 NRC (January 14, 1980).
With our leave, the staff respondecC to that memorandum in a January 23, 1980 supplemental memorandum of its own.
In April 1978 (some three months after the initial de-cision had been rendered and while the intervenors'ppeal from it was still pending before us), the staff brought to our attention the fact that one of the line inspectors at the applicant's two-unit Brunswick facility (which is in operation) believed that "his views on the management capa-bility of [the] [a]pplicant to staff and operate the Harris facility had not adequately been presented to the Licensing Board".
In this connection, the staff transmitted copies of the handwritten notes which the line inspector apparently had given to the supervisory inspectors at their request to assist them in the preparation of their testimony.
In ALAB-490, we referred to these developments and ex-pressed concern respecting the depth of the interrogation of-the supervisory inspectors by the Licensing Board.
Although nonetheless perceiving no necessity to call for a further ex-ploration of the management capability matter, we admonished the staff "to keep the construction and operation of the Shearon s/
While correctly regarding itself duty-bound to ap-prise us of the line inspector's thinking on the-
- matter, the staff expressed the opinion (1) that the "factual content" of his notes was adequately reflected in the testimony of the supervisory in-spectors; and (2) that the supervisory inspectors'onclusion that the applicant is competent to con-duct and operate the Shearon Harris facility was supported by the record.
For these
- reasons, the staff opined that there was no occasion "to take the matter further".
April 18, 1978 letter from staff counsel Charles A. Barth to the members of this Board, at pp. 1-2.
Harris facility under particularly close surveillance to in-sure that the remedial'easures
[said to have been initiated by the applicant]
indeed prove to be effective * * *".
8 NRC at 244.
Our handling of the staff disclosure did not please the Li-censing Board.
On August 30, 1978, just a week after ALAB-490 came down, that Board sent a letter to the. Commission in which it expressed (1) its agreement with the line inspector that his views had not been adequately reflected in the testimony of the supervisory inspectors; and (2) its belief that it had been misled by that testimony.
Taking the Board's letter as raising a question regarding "the integrity of the adjudica-tory process in this proceeding",
the Commission responded to it by, inter alia, remanding the proceeding to the Licensing Board "for a further hearing on the management capabilities of
[the applicant] to construct and operate the proposed Shearon Harris facility without undue risk to the health and safety of the puhlic".
CL2-78-18,
~au ra, 8
NRC at 294.
B.
At the hearing on the remand, the Licensing Board
-took the testimony of a substantial number of witnesses for the applicant and the staff. Thereafter, proposed findings e/
6/
The names and positions of most of those witnesses are set forth in the supplemental decision.
LBP-79-19, su ra; 10 NRC at 43-44.
As is there
- seen, they included FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
of fact and conclusions 'of law were'filed by those parties.
(Although actively participating in the hearing, neither the joint intervenors nor the State of North Carolina did like-wise
)
In its supplemental initial decision, the Licensing Board re'viewed the evidence before it in commendable detail.
On the basis of its analysis of the disclosures of record, it reached the conclusion that the applicant possesses the requisite "management capability and technical qualifications to design and construct" the Shearon Harris facility.
~su sa, 10 NRC at 95.
With respect to facility operation, the Board determined that, at this construction permit stage, the applicant's burden is to establish that "there is now a reasonable'rob-ability that it will timely have the management.capability and technical qualifications to operate the plant without undue risk to the health and safety of the public". 10 NRC at 95. This determination rested upon the provisions of 10 CFR 50.34(a) (6),
6/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) several high-ranking officials of the applicant, as well as supervisory and line members of the staff of the two Commission offices directly involved with the matter:
Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Inspec-tion and Enforcement.
Among the latter were the two supervisory inspectors who had appeared at the ear-lier hearing and the line inspector whose concerns had prompted the remand.
which require the Preliminary Safety. Analysis Report sub-mitted in connection w'ith a construction permit application to contain "[a] preliminary plan for the applicant's or-ganization, training of personnel, and conduct of operate.ons 7/
Much of the evidence on this score related to problems encountered in the operation of the applicant's Brunswick nuclear facility between 1974 and 1977.
See 10 NRC at 74-95.
The Licensing Board took this evidence to establish "clearly" that the quality of the applicant's management during that period "fell below desirable levels, even according to [the 1
applicant's]
standards".
Id. at 96-97.
- Indeed, as the Board saw it, certain of the problems were "the proximate result of management failure"'.
Id. at 97.
The Board both acknowledged and noted its agreement with (1) the insistence of the applicant that effective ac-tion had been taken to solve the problems and (2) the staff's belief that the applicant's operations have considerably im-proved in recent years; were this not so, the Board added, 7/
The Board stated that, in light of 10 CFR 50.34(b) (6) and (7),
" [s]pecifics of the operational plan, in-cluding its managerial and administrative controls, may be deferred until the application for an operat-ing license" (and the accompanying Final Safety Analysis Report) is filed.
Thus, in the Board's view, Section. 50..34(a) (6) '"requires,a reasonable show-ing" that. the applicant will be able'o comply with Sections 50.34(b) (6) and (7).
10 NRC at 95.
it might have been constrained.to suspend the Shearon Harris construction permits.
Ibid.
Nonetheless, according to the Board, there was sufficient residual doubt regarding the applicant's management capability to operate Shearon Harris that a dem-onstration of such capability should be required in an adju-dicatory proceeding at the operating license stage.
Ibid.
To this end, the Board imposed upon the construction permits the following additional condition:
(ix)
At an appropriate time during the re-view of the application for the operating license of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
- Plant, the Staff shall implement the neces-sary actions to enable the Secretary to is-sue a notice of hearing on said application to be published in the Federal Receister re-quired under 10 CFR 2.104.
In addition to the other requirements of Section 2.104, the notice of hearing shall state that the 'presid-ing officer will consider (in addition to any other matter which may be in controversy) whether the Applicant has the management capability and is technically qualified,to engage in the activities to be authorized by the operating license in accordance with the regulations of 10 CFR Chapter 1.
Id. at 98.
It is this condition of which the staff complains.
Al-though not contesting the basic factual findings upon which the condition was founded, it. insists that, in acting upon 'construc-tion permit, applications, licensing boards are not empowered to direct the triggering of an adjudicatory proceeding at the
operating. license stage..
Beyond that, according to the staff, the Board below "misconstrue[d]
the regulations, policies and standards of this Commission" in concluding that its reserva-tions regarding the applicant's capability to operate the fa-cility constituted sufficient reason to require such a pro-ceeding.
Br. p. 16.
It is settled "that, as a general rule, we will entertain an appeal from a licensing board ruling'only if the appellant
'an establish that, in the. final analysis, some discernible injury to it * *,
- has been sustained as a consequence of the ruling'".
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nu-clear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-252, 8 AEC 1175, 1177 (1975),quoting from Toledo Edison Co.
(Davis-Besse 8/
Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-157, 6 AEC 858, 859 (1973).
We must thus consider at the threshold whether (1) harm to the staff has been or might be sustained as a consequence of the Board-imposed requirement that, at the appropriate time, it trigger an adjudicatory proceeding on the application for an operating license; or (2) there is adequate cause to"'allow the appeal by way of an exception to the general rule.
8/
Affirmed without reaching that point, CLI-75-1, 1
NRC 1
(1975).
10 At our direction, the staff addressed, these que'stions in its brief.
Its fundamental position is that there is no need for it to establish that the challenged Licensing Board action will or might occasion direct harm to itself.
- Rather, we are told, it is enough that the staff. is seeking here to vindicate its interest in protecting "the integrity of the Commission's processes" (which it considers to be jeopardized by, the condition in issue).
In this connection,'t is as-serted that "[w]hile the [s]taff may not ordinarily be treated any differently than any other party to proceedings,
[it] does have special duties and responsibilities that affect the
-hearing process".
Br. p. 4.
Although thus disclaiming any obligation to establish actual or potential injury to itself, the staff goes on to maintain that it "has been discernibly harmed" by the condi-tion.
Specifically, it is said, the Board below has both foreclosed the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from 9/
issuing an operating license for Shearon Harris on his own and has directed the staff to take specific actions.
Br.
p.
8.
Neither of these lines of argument is free of difficulty.
Fortunately,
- however, we need not pass ultimate judgment upon them.
For there is another, and to us more compelling, reason 9/
More recently, the Commission suspended for now the au-thority of the Director to issue an operating license in circumstances where no adjudicatory hearing has been con-ducted.
In such circumstances, Commission authorization is required.
44 Fed.
Reg.
65049 (November 9, 1979).
supporting the acceptance of the appeal.
In Prairie Island, BLAB-252,
~su ra, we entertained a
staff petition for reconsideration of our ruling that, sub-ject to certain qualifications, intervenors are to be af-forded the opportunity to cross-examine on those portions of a witness'estimony which relate to matters which have been placed into controversy by at least one of the parties to the proceeding.
We did so notwithstanding the fact that the ruling patently had occasioned no injury to the staff in that proceeding.
Our rationale was the existence of "extra-ordinary circumstances
- *
- which warrant' departure from the general rule enunciated in Davis-Besse".
More specifi-
- cally, The holding to which the petition for re-consideration is addressed could well have an impact upon the course of many licensing hearings.
Unless and until overturned. by action of either this Board or some higher authority, it will be binding upon the li-censing boards in proceedings now under way as well as in future cases.
And offi-cial notice can be taken of the fact that an appreciable number of licensing proceed-ings involve, as did this one, multiple intervenors with different admitted conten-tions.
Xn short, the staff is not asking that a second look be taken by us on some
~ relatively minor point of law of uncertain prospective significance.
- Rather, the petition goes to a legal issue of clear recurring importance, even though (wholly fortuitously) the disposition of this case did not hinge upon it.
-This being so, it.
12 seems altogether proper that,.instead of brushing the petition aside on the au-thority of Davis-Besse, we examine the merits of the staff's arguments to ascer-tain whether there is substance to its insistence that our cross-examination holding should not stand.
8 AEC at 1177-78.
Like considerations appear to be present with respect To be sure, at least inso-to the condition under attack here.
far as we are aware, no othe'r'icensing board recently has sought to impose such a condition on a construction permit.
And it is equally true that the course of the adjudication of the management capability issue in this proceeding took a rather unusual turn.
For all of that,
- however, the juris-dictional question which the staff would have us decide cannot, be dismissed as of little or no precedential impor-tance.
To the contrary, there is a reasonable probability that, if permitted to stand, the remedy chosen by this Li-censing Board will be invoked by future construction permit boards entertaining similar doubts regarding the ability of an applicant to meet all regulatory requirements associated with later reactor operation.
In short, without deciding whether it has justifiably cast itself in the role of a guardian of the "integrity of the Commission's processes,"
we can agree with the staff 10/
But see Na'tional Bureau of Standards, 2 AEC 273, 276 (supplemental dna.teal decease.on an 2 AEC 323 (Commis-sion decision 1963); Florida Power and Li ht Co.
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4),
3 AEC 195,
- 202, (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
13 that the question it has put before us merits our examina-tion and resolution irrespective of the matter of d'iscern-ible injury.
On this basis, we now proceed to the merits of that question.
III.
At the foundation of the staff's attack upon the condi-tion in issue is an unassailable premise:
that licensing boards possess only such powers as have been conferred upon them by the Commission either by regulation or otherwise (e.cC., in the notice of hearing for the specific proceeding or by adjudicatory order).
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-316, 3
NRC 167, 170-71 (1976).
Advancing from this
- premise, the staff insists that construction permit licens-ing boards generally and this Licensing Board in partic-ular have not been clothed with the authority to direct the staff to institute an adjudicatory proceeding at the operating license stage for the purpose of considering one or more specified issues.
This conclusion is said to be compelled by a collective consideration of (1) the Commis-sion's regulations in implementation of Sections 185 and 189a.
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; (2) the 11/
10/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 205 (initial decision) and 4 AEC 9, 15-16 (Commission decision 1967); Fl'o'r'ida.Powe'r Co'r
. (Crystal'iver Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant),
4 AEC 166,
- 170, 173 (initial decision 1968) and 4 AEC 318, 320-22 (Commission deci-sion 1970).
42 U.S.C.
- 2235, 2239,(a).
14 notice of hearing which initiated this-proceeding; and (3) the 1978 order remanding the proceeding to the Board below for further exploration.
A.
By virtue of Section 189a. of the Act, a hearing is required on construction permit applications.
No similar requirement is imposed with regard to operating license applications.
Rather, "in the absence of a request
[for a P
hearing]
by any person whose intere'st may be affected"; this Commission may "issue an operating license'
- without a hearing, but upon thirty days'otice and publication once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so".
Before taking this action, however, the agency must find, as provided in Section 185, that the facility "has been con-structed and will operate in conformity with the application as amended and in conformity with the provisions of this Act and of.the rules and regulations of the Commission."
This basic licensing scheme was carried over into 10 CFR Part 2, the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Xn sub-
- stance, the Rules require the issuance of a notice of hear-ing on every application for a construction permit.
Xf, how-
- ever, an operating license application is involved, a notice of hearing is to be issued ab initio only in circumstances I
where '"the Commission finds that a hearing is required in the
15 0
public interest".
In the-absence of such a finding, a notice of the proposed issuance of an operating license must be published in the Federal Recei'ster;- this notice must,'nter al'ia, provide for the filing of intervention petitions and requests for a hearing on the part of "[a]ny person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding". In'he event that at least one such re-12/
quest and petition is both filed and granted, a notice of hear-ing then is forthcoming. Otherwise, the operating license 13/
~
~
may be issued without a hearing.
See 10 CFR 2.104, 2.105.
14/
12/
In the case of a construction permit application or a Commission-ordered hearing on an operating license ap-plication, the opportunity to seek intervention is ex-tended
-to interested persons in conjunction with the issuance of the notice of hearing.
13/ If thus initiated, the adjudicatory proceeding on an operating license application is confined to the mat-ters placed into controversy by the parties, together with any other matters which the Licensing Board (or this Board or the Commission on appellate review) deems worthy of consideration.
See 10 CFR 2.760a.
14/
A notice of issuance of the license must be published in the Federal
~eceister.
The notice must contain, inter alia, a finding that the application for the li-cense complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations.
See 10 CFR 2.106.
Although Section 2.105(e) authorizes the Director to issue the license, as earlier noted (see fn. 9,
~su ra) that authority was recently suspended and action by the Commission itself is now required.
16 As appears from its January 14 memorandum, LBP-80-3,
~su ra, the Licensing Board rests its authority to impose the condition in issue upon the proviso in 10 CFR 2.104 (a)
- that, even though not mandated by statute or regulation, a
hearing will nonetheless be held on an operating license application if "the Commission finds that [it] is required in the public interest".
In the Board's view, it is empowered to make a finding to that effect under its delegation to con-duct this adjudicatory proceeding on the Commission's behalf (i.e
, it is vested with all of the authority conferred by Section 2.104 upon the Commission itself).
See 11 NRC at For the purposes of the Rules of Practice, the term "Commission" has been explicitly defined to include "the Commission of five members or a quorum thereof sitting as a
body,* *
- or any officer to whom has been delegated authority pursuant to section 16ln of the
[Atomic Energy] Act".
10 CFR 15/
In its supplemental initial decision rendered last July, the Board did not address the jurisdictional question to any extent.
- Hence, the reasoning underlying its conclu-sion on that question is to be found exclusively in the January 14 memorandum.
16/
Needless to say, as employed in this opinion references to "the Commission" are to the five Commissioners function-ing as a collegial body.
(Absent a contrary indication, that is the meaning that normally is to be ascribed to such a reference when found in an appeal board opinion.)
17 2.4(e).
=
Given this definition, we can readily concur with the Board below that Section 2.104(a) cannot be taken as, on its face, requiring that the public interest finding be made by the Commission and no one else. We can further. agree that 18/
the challenged license condition is fairly read as embracing such a finding insofar as the management capability issue is concerned.
But acknowledgement of the force of the Board's position on these scores is not the end of the matter.
There remains the question of the timing of the finding.
Implicit in the reasoning of the Board below is a belief
'hat Section 2.104(a) authorizes the making of the finding at any time.
More specifically, the necessary, albeit unspoken, assumption is that the Section contemplates that the Commission (or its delegate) might appropriately find that a hearing on an operating license application is required in the public inter-est notwithstanding that, at the time the finding is made, the application has not as yet been filed and,
- indeed, might. be still years in the offing.
As we see it, however, the Section cannot reasonably be so construed.
- Rather, read as a whole, 17/
18/
The definition of "Commission" contained in 10 CFR 1.1(b), cited by the Licensing Board, is in terms applicable only to Part, 1 of 10 CFR.
Thus, it is the Part 2-definition which controls here.
For reasons we do not regard as particularly con-vincing, the staff argues that "[t]he boards are not delegates of the Commission under this provision of the regulations".
Supplemental memorandum,
- p. 5.
As will shortly become clear, it is not necessary to dwell upon those reasons here.
See,fn.. 20,'nfra.
18 the Section conveys the message to us that the finding (1) is to be made only after the filing of the application and (2) should be founded on the content of that application together with all current available information having a bearing upon the need to hold an evidentiary hearing irrespective of whether one might be requested by the applicant or an interested person.
This very case amply illumes why this is the sensible in-terpretation of Section 2.104(a).
Xn light of the factual disclosures in the record before it, the Licensing Board well may have had good cause to harbor some residual doubt respect-ing whether, when the Shearon Harris facility is completed and ready to go on line, the applicant will possess the requisite management capability to operate it satisfactorily.
- And, understandably and commendably, the Board wishes to insure that, before the facility is licensed for operation, the foundation for the doubt has been removed.
But, although it may now appear to the Board that this objective can be best accomplished by a reexamination of the management capability issue in an adjudicatory hearing at, the operating license
- stage, once that stage has been reached a quite different conclusion may have become warranted.
At that time, for example, it might clearly appear that the applicant in fact has rectified each of the.shortcomings in the management of
19 its other now-operating nuclear facilities which had given rise to the Board's, doubts and that there is no longer any reason to be concerned respecting its ability to operate Shearon Harris properly.
In such circumstances, there would be at least room for serious question whether a hearing on the management capability issue need be held "in the public interest" despite the lack of a request for one by any inter-ested person.
In short, the vice of the Licensing Board's condition is that it prescribes future procedural action of an eztra-ordinary character on the basis of a present set of facts which may materially change in the interim. Ne cannot ac-19/
cept the Licensing Board's thesis that Section 2.104(a) was in-tended to sanction such a course.
- Rather, once again, we are satisfied that the Commission's contemplation was that any finding that the public interest dictates the conduct of an otherwise non-required hearing on a license application will rest upon a contemporaneous appraisal of the various relevant factors -- thereby giving the finding the support which it obviously will lack if founded instead upon stale information 20/
acquired years previously.
].9/
Cf. Arkansas Power and Li ht Co.
(Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2), ALAB-94, 6 AEC 25, 30-31 (1973).
20/ It follows from the foregoing discussion that, because a construction permit board's jurisdiction almost in-variably will have terminated by the time the operating (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
20 B.
The Licensing Board has not suggested that either the notice of hearing which initiated the construction permit proceeding or the Commission's remand order in September 1978might supply an alternative basis for its authority to order an evidentiary hearing at the operating license stage.
And it is clear that they do not.
The notice of hearing was entirely unexceptional in its content; neither in terms nor by implication did it confer upon the Licensing Board any special powers beyond those enjoyed by construction permit boards generally.
Similarly, the remand order is de-void of anything which might be thought to allow the Board, upon its further exploration of the management capability is-
- sue, to take action which 'would have been beyond the authority of any other licensing board considering the same issue in the context of a construction permit application.
True enough, in carrying out its adjudicatory responsi-
- bilities, a licensing board has broad authority to impose conditions on the sought permit or license which require that certain measures be taken relating to plant construction 20/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) license application is filed, such a board will rarely, if ever, be in a position to make the Section 2.104(a)
"public interest" finding on the Commission's behalf.
21/
37 Fed.
Rece.
20344 (September 29, 1972).
22/ CLI-78-18,
~su ra.
21 or operation in the interest'of safety or the preservation of environmental values.
But that, authority has never been held to allow a condition which, in effect, triggers the initiation of a new and independent adjudicatory proceeding at a later date.
Xndeed, it is well-settled that licensing boards are not empowered to take such a step.
More than 12 I
years
- ago, the Commission flatly stated that it had "not delegated to atomic safety and licensing boards the authority to direct the holding of hearings following the issuance of a construction permit".
burke Point,
~su ra fn. 10, 4
AEC at 15. Whether or not the Licensing Board is right in its characterization of that. statement as dicta, it nonethe-less must be accepted as reflecting the view of the Commission on the point at that time.
And there having been no material alteration in the scope of the Commission's delegation to the licensing boards since burke Point either by.rule change or otherwise --, the statement is still entitled to our 24/
respect.
23/
24/
See also,
~Cr stal River, supra fn. 10.
The "public'nterest" finding provision in Section 2.104 (a) of the Rules of Practice, discussed
- above, was in effect when ~Turke Point was decided.
And there is no possible anconsrstency between the pro-vision and that decision.
- For, as earlier noted, under our interpretation of Section 2.104(a) a con-struction permit board would no longer be in exist-ence at the time the "public interest" finding is to be made.
22 While the ~Turke Point pronouncement should thus carry the day in all events", it is also worthy of note that we too have expressly determined that "the licensing boards have no independent authority to initiate any form of adjudicatory proceeding"; rather,
"[w]hat is required is the prior issu-
- ance, by some other component of the Commission, of one of the five types of orders or notices specified in 10 C.F.R. 2.700".
Houston Li htin and Power Co.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-381, 5
NRC 582, 592 (1977).
The Licens-ing Board acknowledged this holding but found it to be no obstacle to the imposition of the license condition.
In the Board's view, as the delegate of "some other component" i.e., the Commission itself -- it could exercise the Commis-sion s authority under Section 2.104(a) to initiate a hearing through the vehicle of a finding that one is required in the public interest.
11 NRC at As has already been
- seen, however, this line of reasoning is based upon a faulty read-ing of that Section.
To repeat, the "public interest" find-ing provision of that Section cannot be invoked at the con-ll struction permit stage to call for the institution of a hear-ing at the operating license stage.
This being so, it is of no moment that, as observed in South Texas (5
WRC at 592),
the issuance of "a notice of hearing
[under Section 2.104]
on
23 an application which * *
- in the public interest should * *
- be heard" is one of "the means by which an adjudicatory proceed-ing can be commenced.
Zt well may be, of course, that the Commission has the inherent authority to order an evidentiary hearing on a license application. in circumstances (or at a time) not within the specific contemplation of the Rules of Practice.
But that matter need not be explored here.
The bounds of the inherent powers possessed by Licensing Boards are not co-extensive with those of the Commission.
Whatever may be the reach of the Commission's own authority, licensing boaid action must be founded upon either express or necessarily implicit delegation of that authority to it.
Needless to say, an authorization to conduct an adjudicatory proceeding pursuant to a notice of hearing issued by the Commission does not carry with it by necessary implication the power to order the initiation at a later date of a separate and distinct proceeding.
C.
We thus are constrained to agree with the staff that the Licensing Board exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the challenged license condition.
For that reason, the condition may not be allowed to stand.
24 It, does not perforce follow, however, that the Board was not entitled to give expression to both its residual concerns respecting the applicant's management capability to operate the facility and its present belief that a hearing on that issue at the operating license stage would be in the public interest.
To the contrary, it was not merely the right, but the duty, of the Board to include in the supplemental initial N
decision the full range of the determinations it had reached in its appraisal of the record before it.
No other conclusion is possible in the face of the Commission's explicit direction in its remand order that the Boaid conduct "a further hearing on the management capabilities of [the applicant] to construct risk to the health and safety of the public".
See p.
5, E
~su ra; emphasis supplied.
Stated otherwise, it is scarcely likely that the Commission would have issued such 'a direction had it not intended the Licensing Board first to explore thoroughly all aspects of the management capability issue and
.then to make known the fruits of that exploration.
Equally implicit in the terms of the remand order is an instruction to the Licensing Board to prescribe such remedial action as might both be warranted by its findings and within
25 the bounds of its general delegated authority.
In its January 14 l,
memorandum, LBP-80-3,'su ra, the Board takes note of this fact and goes on to illume the options to which. it had given con-sideration once it had appraised the record before it.in terms of the requirement that, at the construction permit stage, there be a "preliminary plan for the applicant's organization, training r
of personnel, and conduct of operations".
We are told that, notwithstanding its doubt regarding whether that requirement had been satisfactorily met, there was insufficient cause to suspend the outstanding construction permits (inasmuch as the conditions precedent to the issuance of such permits set forth in 10 CFR 50.35(a) had been fulfilled).
What the Board therefore looked for was another remedy which would be at once "practical and equitable".
Rejecting (for the reasons stated in its supple-mental initial decision) the alternative of devising a li-cense condition which would mandate the submission of an im-proved "preliminary plan for the applicant's organization, training of personnel, and conduct of operations",
the Board chose instead to impose a condition which would insure an oper-ating license hearing.
11 NRC at (memorandum, pp. 17-18).
35/
See fn 7,
.~su ra and accompanying text.
26/
10 NRC at 97.
26 Having held that condition to be invalid, we might, of
- course, remand the matter to the Licensing Board to enable it to search anew for a remedy both consistent with its findings and within its authority.
We ha've 'concluded,
- however, that there is no necessity to prolong this lengthy proceeding still further. by taking that step.
- Rather, we can and shall fashion appropriate relief ourselves.
We have previously noted our agreement with the Licensing Board's belief in the importance of insuring that the requisite management capability is present when the Shearon Harris fa-cility commences operation.
And, it seems patent to us that whether that capability exists is much better determined by an appraisal of the quality of the applicant's management at the time of the operating license application than it is by the scrutiny of preliminary plans submitted years in advance.
Cf.
Consumers Power Co.
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-106, 6 AEC 182, 184.The condition imposed by the Licensing Board appears to reflect a similar view as well as the Board's con-viction that a hearing on the operating license will provide the best mechanism for conducting that appraisal.
Although not sharing the Board's opinion that the desira-bility of an operating license hearing should or can be conclu-27/
In this connection, the staff challenges the Licensing Board's statement in the January 14 memorandum that there was doubt as to the adequacy of the applicant's preliminary plan. It observes that the Board did not indicate in what (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
27 sively determined at the construction permit'tage, we of as/
course do not suggest eth'at such a hearing perforce will be ultimately found unwarranted.
As the staff itself acknowledges, following the filing of the operating license application and its supporting documentation, a member of the public may re-quest a hearing or the Commission may see fit to order one in the public interest.
29/
In the making of an informed judgment on whether to exer-cise the right to seek or to order a hearing on the management capability issue, interested persons and the Commission would plainly be advantaged by ready access not merely to the ap-plication and its accompaniments
- but, as well, to the product of the staff's evaluation of all information then at hand which P
might bear upon that issue.
It appears, however, that in normal circumstances that evaluation would not be available either to the public or the Commission prior to the time of the issuance of the notice of proposed action under 10 CFR 2.105.
Indeed.,
such an evaluation would not even have been undertaken.
27/
28/
29/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) respects the plan was inadequate.
Staff supplemental memorandum,
- p. 11.
We are inclined to agree with the staff that the Board's residual doubt related in actu-ality to whether the applicant has the capability to carry out the plan (given its past performance in the operation of its other nuclear facilities).
But, even if it might be relevant to the warrant for the condition imposed by the Board, we think that distinction unimpor-tant to the appropriateness of the quite different sub-stitute relief we are directing in this opinion.
See p. 19,
~eu ra.
While we are unaware of any prior occasion upon which the Commission has taken such a step, the possibility that it will do so in this instance is a real one.
28 Section 2.105(a) (4) provides that the notice of proposed action (commonly denominated a "notice of opportunity for hearing") "shall be issued as soon as practicable after the
[operating license] application has been docketed".
In turn, the docketing of a tendered application takes place upon the determination by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that it is "complete and acceptable for docketing".
"Generally, that determination 'will be made [if warranted] within a period of thirty (30) days".
As is thus obvious, the staff-usually will conduct its detailed review of the operating license application after the notice of opportunity for hearing has issued (or, alternatively, after the Commission itself has triggered a hearing hy a finding under Section 2.104(a) that one is required in the'ub-lic interest). This is borne out by the statement of consid-30/
erations which accompanied the-1972.,amendments to the Rules of Practice which established the "early notice" procedures.
It is therein observed that the initial task of the staff is to de-cide whether the application is "reasonably complete and con-forms to the Commission's requirements".
Once the staff has answered that question in the affirmative and docketed the
'30/
Once again, a notice of hearing, rather than a notice of opportunity for hearing, is issued if a Section 2.104(a) finding has been made.
29 application, it becomes obliged "to establish a schedule for its review of the application and to specify the key inter-mediate points of that review".
37 Fed.
Rece.
- 15127, 15128 (July 28, 1972).
No doubt, as the statement of considerations also suggests, these "early notice" provisions under which the staff's re-view and up-dated safety analysis of an operating
~ license ap-plication come after, rather than before, the notice-of op-portunity for hearing will best serve the interests. of all concerned in the typical case.
But we do not understand. their adoption by the Commission to carry with it the notion that there must be blind adherence to them even in special situations such. as that presented here.'
-Stated otherwise, if the decision whether to request or order a hearing on the manage-ment capability issue might be most intelligently reached against the background of the staff's appraisal of-that capa-bility, why should not those who must make that decision-i.e., the public and the Commission itself -- have the benefit of the appraisal?
En short, while Sections 2.101(a) and 2.105(a) chart the course that. the staff is generally to. pursue in its processing of an operating license application, we think that some devia-tion from that course is permissible (if not obligatory) where exceptional circumstances-bearing upon the-public health and Xn our view, the history of this applicant's management of plant operation (as illumed in the supplemental ini-tial decision) justifies that characterization of the situation at bar.
30 safety warrant it.
In this connection, the deviation we have in mind here requiring the staff to make and publicize its appraisal of the applicant's management capability in advance of the issuance of a notice of opportunity for hearing is modest in scope and (unlike the license condition imposed by the Licensing Board) meshes well with the basic regulatory scheme.
While the Board below sought to direct the staff to take affirmative action not otherwise required of it by statute or regulation, our proposed instruction goes simply to the timing of action which, in all events, the staff must take sooner or later in its mandated review of all health and safety aspects of the operating license application.
(Indeed, even if the Commission's regulations did not specifically call for a fresh and close examination of the applicant's management capability as'part of that review, given the history of Brunswick plant operation the staff would be derelict in the discharge of its responsibilities were it to fail to focus on that matter.)
In this regard, the staff should not encounter serious difficulty in undertaking an early evaluation of management capability.
To be sure, the operating license application I
likely will be filed well in advance of the completion of the
31 plant.
But it will have to be accompanied by the Final Safety Analysis Report, which must include, inter alia:
The following information concerning facil-ity operation:
(i)
The applicant's organizational structure, allocations
[of] responsibilities and authorities, and personnel qualifications requirements.
(ii)
Managerial and administrative con-trols to be used to assure safe operation.
Beyond that, we understand that the Com-mission's Office of Inspection and Enforcement now has two resident inspectors assigned to the Brunswick facility.
Pre-sumably, their surveillance of the operation of that facility already has been, and will continue to be, a fertile source of valuable information respecting both the extent of the advance-ments in the applicant's capability to manage its nuclear fa-cilities and the present-day quality of its managers.
The, fact that the staff, should thus be in a position to make an informed appraisal of management capability once the operating license application is in hand does not mean, of
- course, that it, would be precluded from later altering its conclusions if further developments or analysis so warranted.
Certainly, no such proscription would be consistent with the staff's fulfillment of the important role assigned to it in connection with operating license applications.
All we intend
32 to suggest is that it is feasible for the staff to provide an early and in-depth evaluation of management capability which would assist interested persons and the Commission in deter-mining whether an adjudicatory hearing on the question is merited.
32/
In the course of its attack upon'he Licensing Board's condition, the staff asserted (supplemental memorandum, pp.
4-5) that one should not presume that either it or the Com-mission "will not do a proper job in seeing that [the applicant]
has the requisite qualifications for an operating license with-out an adjudicatory hearing".
Without pausing to reflect upon whether the condition carries that implication, we can confi-dently say that our substitute remedy does not.
To the con-trary, it both recognizes the key role which the staff plays in the passing of final judgment upon the applicant's qualifi-cations and presumes that that role will be properly executed.
32/
This being so, it would not appear that there should be an appreciable delay in the issuance of the notice of opportunity for hearing (assuming no Section 2.104(a)
"public interest" finding is made by the Commission).
It might be added that, in emphasizing the importance that an early appraisal might have to the Commission, we do not imply that its "public interest" finding nec-essarily would have to be made before a notice of oppor-tunity for hearing was issued.
But Sections 2.104(a) and 2.105'(a) certainly suggest that any such finding normally will be made in advance of the public notice and control the kind of notice given (i.e., if the find-ing has been
- made, a notice of hearing will issue rather than simply a notice of opportunity for hearing).
And there are, of course, advantages to having members of the public know, at. the time they must decide upon seek-ing intervention themselves, whether the Commission thinks a hearing is required.
33 Moreover, the remedy does no violence to the fundamental con-
- cept, stressed consistently by the staff, that an operating license adjudicatory proceeding is to be triggered only by either a successful intervention petition and request for a hearing or a Section 2.104(a)
"public interest" finding.
(Rather, as previously developed, its sole purpose and effect is to provide an additional measure of assurance that an op-crating license proceeding will be triggered by one of these 33/
mechanisms if, but only if, there is good reason for doing so.)
IV.
Implicit in the foregoing is our agreement with the Li-censing Board's conclusion (not challenged by any of the parties) that a withdrawal of the now-issued construction permits is not warranted by reason of the still lingering questions relating to the applicant's capability properly to E!'
at least so long as the staff action called-for in this 33/
In the totality of the foregoing circumstances, we find no occasion to dwell at length on our authority to order this relief in the exercise of the Commission's review functions delegated to us in 10 CFR 2.785(a).
As we see it, the reach of that delegation must be thought broad enough to enable us to direct the staff to take certain measures (already required of it) at a time when the Com-mission and the public will derive an important informa-tional benefit from them. If the staff thinks otherwise, it is free, of course, to seek the intercession of the Commission (which is the ultimate arbiter of the bounds of the powers it has bestowed upon us).
34 opinion is fully carried out, the resolution of those ques-tions can appropriately abide the event of the filing and consideration of the operating license application with or without an adjudicatory hearing (as it, may turn out).
34/
What remains is the Licensing Board's additional deter-mination that the record sufficiently demonstrates the appli-cant's managerial and technical capability tc 'desicen and construct, the facility.
10 NRC at 63, 95.
Because this determination likewise has gone unchallenged, we have re-viewed it on our initiative.
An examination of the Board's detailed subsidiary findings '('id. at 45-63),
and of the under-lying record, persuades us that the findings have sufficient evidentiary foundation and support the result reached on that issue.
In the same vein, one concluding general observation is in order.
That we have parted company with the Licensing Board on a single and narrow jurisdictional point should not be allowed to obscure the exemplary manner in whi'ch that Board discharged its responsibilities on the remand of this proceeding.
It is evident to us that, once provided with the opportunity to do so by the Commission, the Board saw to it that the management capability issue was probed with the 34/
Needless to say, again without regard to whether a hear-ing is held, the applicant will then have to establish that it has the requisite managem'ent capability (and not simply that it is moving toward that end).
35 thoroughness that it indisputably warranted.
The end product was a comprehensive record and a decision which reflected the careful and thoughtful attention which the Board had given to the evidence.
35/-
V.
For the foregoing reasons, the supplemental initial de-cision, LB9-79-19,
'~su ra, is modified to delete the condition imposed upon the construction permits in paragraph
- 201, 10 NRC at 98.
8ee p.
8,
~su ra.
Zn lieu of that condition, the staff is hereby directed to insure that no notice of opportunity for hearing under 10 CFR 2.105 is issued in connection with any application which may be filed for operating licenses for the Shearon Harris facility 'unless and until:
(1)
The staff has conducted, on the basis of the content of the operating license application and supporting documenta-tion (together with any other pertinent information then at its disposal),
a preliminary evaluation of the applicant's capability to manage the operation of the facility in conformity with all regulatory requirements which have or may be imposed in the interest of the protection of the public health and safety; and (2)
The findings and conclusions reached upon that evalua-tion have been (a) made publicly available in written form; and 35/
We also commend for serious staff consideration the ob-servations made by that Board in a memorandum appended to its supplemental initial decision.
See 10 NRC at 104-07.
36 (b) brought specifically to the attention of the Commission with an accompanying reference to both the Licensing Board's supplemental initial decision and our decision today. It is further directed that, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.105(b)(2),
the notice of opportunity for hearing (if one is issued) set forth the manner in which a copy of that analysis may be ob-tained or examined.
As so modified, the supplemental initial decision is affirmed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD C. Jea Bishop Secret y to the Appeal Board
~p,ls REQIr'ei0
\\'
es ss ktg44 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 NORK ORDER NO. NRC-401-45 50is'tribution JKelley ASLAB-529 EW P!Ii1der ELD-MNBB 9604 Nancy Little AR 2223 Central Files 016 Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard-IlflBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Evidentiary Hearing DOCKET NO(S):
50"400"OL PERSON TO'ONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
George Quick (919) 876-0387 or 872-7666 LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
Holiday Inn North (Nov. 4-6, 1985) 2815 N. Blvd.
- Raleigh, N.C.
- See reverse side for other locations DATE(S) OF PROCEEDING:
TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
November 4-6 and November 12-15 * (13-15 canceled)9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelle MEMBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright James H. Carpenter
~Co les
/ 7 Original only
/ 7 Original
+
1
~Deliver
/
xT Daily
/~ 2-Day Deliver To:
ORIG & 4 cys:
/
>i7 Hearing Site 1 cy:
/ x7 USNRC ASLBP 4350 E/W Hwy.
- Bethesda, Md.
~/
Original
+ 5 (daily only)
/ 7 5-Day
/ 7 Last Day:
ORIG & 5 cys:
- bethesda, Md.
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION DATE d
g PERSON CONTACTED BY:
rogect cer ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD PANEL
/
'I t
WORK ORDER NO.
NRC-401-45 DATE:
10-11-85 OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
- OTHER LOCATIONS FOR HEARING Federal Building (November 12 only) 310 New Bern Avenue
- Raleigh, N.C.
contact:
Ronda Cathcart (919) 856-4680 SECURITY INFORMATION:
+ Raleigh Civic Center (November 13-15) 500 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, N.C.
Contact:
Carol Mann (919)755-6011
<p,S ARCS+
(4 O~ 'Pg o
+ ~*~+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 WORK ORDER NO.
NRC-LBP-44 Distribution PWilder ASLAB-529 EW JKelley ELD-MNBB-9604 TMcLearen-AR 2223 Central Files 016 ~
Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard-MNBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris DOCKET NO(S):
50-400-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East West Highway East West Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
September 13, 1985 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING
( FROM-TO):
'10 - 11 a.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
8218 CHAIRMAN:
James L. Kelley MEMBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver copy(ies) of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.]
BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS
& WIHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original and 5 copies 2-day delivery to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION A 7 ~~
DATE W
Sd PERSON CONTACTED BY:
t C
UNITE D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COVihiIISSION h'QRK PIN C8:~h%c-NP-01
~g g RKgi
~4(4 0
- "'Xp~4~'.,".:.
+4*4+
NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Pos(er Plant Conference Call Distribution ASLAB-529 ElJ P'lJil der JKel 1 ey ELD-MNBB-9604 TJ1cLearen-AR 2223 Central Files 016 Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard-MNBB 3709 DOCKET NO(S):
50-400-0L LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East 1<est Highway East 1Jest Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S) OF PROCEEDING:
August 26, 1985 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia 1Jilder 492-7838 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
2 30 - 3 30 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
8202 CHAIRMAN: James Kelle J1EMiBERS:
Glenn 0. Bri ht and James H. Car enter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver copy(ies) of the, transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of-delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.]
BOARD STAFF (ELD OTHERS 8
WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original and 5 copies 2-day delivery to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGMA OF PREPA ER dP~
DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION
$3~~
DATE~
PERSON CONTACTED Rv ~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 WORK ORDER NO.
NRC-LBP-32 Distribution PQi1der ASLAB - 529 El%
JKel 1 ey ELD - MNBB 9604 TVcLearen AR 2223 Central Files 016 Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard-MNBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Conference Call LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East West Highway East West Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
August 5, 1985 DOCKET NO(S):
50-400 OL PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
8168 CHAIRMAN James L ~ Kel 1 ey MEMBERS.
Glenn 0 ~ Bright and James H ~ Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS; Deliver copy',ies) of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.,20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.
I BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS 5
WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original and 5 copies 2-day del'ivery to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL RE/VEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN COI'IFIRMATION
~V7 L3~~
DATE g
cP +~
PERSON CONTACTED
~-t t ~
t'0 4 Att
~ '
4 N".
tw444 t 444.4lt 8 BEO 0
l()(~'
S "a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONIMISSION lVASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 WORK ORDER NO.
NRC-LBP-7 Distribution PWilder JKelley ELD-NNBB 9604 TNcLearen AR 2223 Central Files 016 Jean Lee-Phil 128 JFouchard-HNBB 3709 ASLAB-529 EW NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power'lant Conference Call LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
$350 East Hest Highway East Hest Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, ND DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
June 6, 1985 DOCKET NO(S):
50-400 OL PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:.
Patricia lhlder 492-7838 TINE(S)
OF PROCEEDING (FROi~-TO):
10 a.m.
12 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
7728 CHAIRllAN: James L-Kelley HEhBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver copy(ies) of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, i"aryland 20814.
t Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day-(hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.
l BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS 5
WHERE LAST DAY IN STRUCTIOilS Original and 5 copies 2-day,delivery to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTP,IBUTION:
S]GliATURE OF PREPARER
.MF. ~~~~ W JB~ ~
DATE i5
~ S~
DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORT1NG CO.
DATE OF HRIT1EN CONFIR!;AT}ON PERSOR COllTACTED
0 l
Oy UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 WORK ORDER NQ.
NRC-LB - 183*
ASLAB - 529 Elf JJKJ y
PHil der ELD-1'INBB 9604 Tf1cLearen AR 2223 Central Files 016 Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard-tlNBB 3709 June 26-28 canceled NAME ANO TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Shearon Harris Evidentiary hearing LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
June 24
& 25 at the Ramada Inn Interstate 55 U.S.
1 South
- Apex, flC 27502 contact:
tifr. Robert Kirkland (919)
DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
June 24-28 (hearing expected to end on June 25th)
DOCKET NO(S):
PEPSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Jun 26-28 at the Ral 'ivic Center
'0 jul-Street Mall l
Ra 1 e.ig~C 01 contact:
Carol f1ann (919)755-6011 362-8621 TIflE(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-,TO):
10 a.m. - 6 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMiBERS:
7768 CHAIRIIAN: James L. Kelley
!!EMBERS.. Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLSP H ARINGS:
Deliver copy(ies) of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, I'aryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.j BOARD STAFF (ELO)
OTHERS
& WHERE Hearing site next day copy LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original
& 5 copies to Pat Wilder (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL I "ISTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATURE OF PR PARER DATE
~+2 - $.5 DATE OF ORAL RE(VEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF 'WRITTEN COt'IFIRMATION PERSON CONTACTED BY:
~
h
MORN ORDER NO.
NRC-LB P-6 ti
'K 11e ASLAB - 529 Eil PWilder UNITED STATES ELD-MNBB 9604 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TMcLearen-AR 2223 IVASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 Central Files 016 Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard MNBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Conference Call LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East West Highway East West Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
May 29, 1985 DOCKET NO(S): 50-400 OL PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
10 a.m. - 12 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATIOIN WITH PAGE NU11BERS:
7635 CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelle
'.-';"MISERS:
Glenn 0. Bri ht and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver copv(i s) of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/Wiest Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.J BOARD STAFF
{ELD)
OTHERS 8
WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCT?ONS Original and 5 copies 2-day delivery to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office
{This section for ASLLP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTIOiN'<.
SIG!IATURE OF PREPARER g~~~ P~ '>~~
DATE DATE OF ORAL RE(LIEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION PERSON CONTACTED RYE
~g,R REGS Wp e
o
+>>*+~
Distribution BBKB 2 ABKAB - 529 252 PHil der ELD-flNBB 9604 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COViMISSION Central Files 016 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JFouchard-MNBB 3709 WORK ORDER NQ.
NRC-LB -
183 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Shearon Harris Evidentiary hearing LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
June 24 8 25 at the Ramada Inn Interstate 55 U.S.
1 South
- Apex, NC 27502 contact:
Mr. Robert Kirkland (919)
DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
June 24-28 (hearing expected to end on June 25th)
DOCKET NO(S):
50 400 OL PEPSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
June 26-28 at the Raleigh Civic Center 500 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, NC 27601
\\
contact:
Carol Mann (919)755-6011 362-8621 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
10 a.m. - 6 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMiBERS:
CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelley
- lEMIBERS
- Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLSP HEAP,INGS:
Deliver copv(ies} of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, f'aryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.".
BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS 5
WHERE Hearing site next day copy LAST DAY INSTRUCT IOUS Original fm 5 copies to Pat Wilder (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN COi'fFIRMATION DATE PERSON CONTACTED
~C g>R RKCy II&
C to
+~~~4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'CWORK ORDER NO.
NRC-LBP-3 Distribution JKelley ASLAB
-.. 529 EII Pllilder LD tl"IBB 9SO4 TIIcLearen AR 2223 Central Files 016 Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard tINBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Conference Call LOCATION OF PQOCEEDII'IG:
4350 East Hest Highway Room 453 DOCKET NO(S):
50-400 OL PERSON TO CONTACT ANO TFLEPHO'.IE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 DATE(S} OF PROCEEDING:
tiay 21, 1985 TIVE!S)
OF PROCEEDI;IG, FROlh-TO):
10 am -12 pm BEGI'I PAGINATIOiV WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
7587 CHAIRIIA<I:
James L. Kelley HENBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DEILII!ERY I ISTRUCTIOi'IS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS Deliver copy(ies> of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/Nest Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 208I4.
(P'.ease indica.e tyoe of delivery, i
, 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.~
BOARD STAFF (ELO}
OTHEPS
'I!HERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIOIVS Original and 5 copies 2-day delivery to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office
',This section for ASLBP use onlv)
SPECIAL INSTR!ICTIONS FOR DISTRIBLITION:
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER W~ /ga~
DATE DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF llP.ITT N C'}IIFIRMATIO'l PERSON CON ACTEO
~ P,ia 4 E C ~d (I
fp
- " 'if')~)
g IF>>*We UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EG U LATORY COMMISSION ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD PANEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 WORK ORDER IN TOWN 100 Distribution BBKB 9 AKIAB-529 EII PWilder ELD MNBB-9604 TtlcLearen AR2223 Central Files 016 ~
Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouhard t<NBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Conference call LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
DOCKET NO(S): 50-400-OL PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
tray 7, 1985 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROMi-TO):
10am-ll am BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
CHAIRMAN:
James L. Kelley MEMBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to, SS ast inst
~g nay,
- eeteesda, Maryland PORI4.
[Please indicate type c
delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only}, 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delive',.'ocation, i.e., site of hearing, etc.1 A magnetic tape should be made of hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
BOARD STAG~(ELD)
OTHERS 81 WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS 5-day delivery Original 5
5 copies to Pat Wilder, Bethesda Office (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTPUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATUPE OF PREPARER Ddaay"5-5 DATE DATE OF ORAL REDUEST TO REPORTING CO.
9 /
EF~
PERSON CONTACTED~e~
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION i,7
/~
0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfVIMISSION ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL LVASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 NORE ORDER NO.
ASI.OP IN-TONN 30 Distribution 3RHl J
(
(23 PHil der JFouchard ELD-MNBB 9604 Central Files 016 ASLAB-529 E/ht NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Prehearing Conference Call Nuclear Power Plant 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S): 50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East )lest Highway East liest Towers
- Bethesda, MD PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Milder 492-7838 DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
December 17, 1984 (t~ionday)
TIME(S)
OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
I:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
BEGlf< PAGltiATl'OfIf l'tITH PAGE ftUfIBERS:
7409 CHAIRf'IAti: James L. Kelley MEMBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and Jame H. Carpenter (Jh 0'l((~,
(
~(p (Hells Eddleman, intervenor)
DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARIt~GS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcriPt to ASLBP, 4350 East/h!est Highway, Bethesda, t~aryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of oelivery, i.e., S-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.j A magnetic tape should be made of hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer-BOARD STAFF ELD)
OTHERS 8
hIHERE LAST DAY I WSTRUCTIOfIlS Original and 5 next day copies to pat ltilder, Bethesda Office 1'This section for ASLBP use. only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER i8~~m DATE OF ORAL -REOUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF HRITTEN CONF lRMIATION PERSON CONTACTED
0-Uf'9IT E D STAT ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COh'IVitSSION ATOMICSAFETY AMD LICEMSII7!G BOARD PANEL Vi'ASHIMG1OM, D.C. 20555 WORK ORDER NO. ASLBP IN-TOWN 22 Distribution JKel 1 ey Jean Lee 123 PWilder JFouchard ELD-t<NBB 9604 Central Files 016 ASLAB 529 E/H hANE AND TYPE pF PRQCEEDIt)~G..Shearon Harris Nuclear Preharing Conference call Nuclear Power Plant 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S): 50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East West Highway East Hest Towers
- Bethesda, MD PERSON TO CONTACT AND TEl EPHPt~E NP Pat Wilder 492-7838 DATE(S)
OF PRQCEEDItiG:
Wednesday, December 5,
1984 Tlt'iE(S)
OF PROCEEDING (FRPtl TP).
10:30-11:30 a.m.
BEGIts PAGItlAT ION lIITH PAGE tsUl'iBERS:
TI"~
7371 CHAIRiifN: James L. )'elley hEt;BERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter
- .=-t le~ Berth f~ Janice tloore (Staff), Thomas Baxter, coun'l,'1 for Applicant, Wells Eddleman g,
'c'in Auntie (intervenorsj, Salitalltha Flynn, couIiseI for C4L)
Deliv to ASLBP, 4350 East/'est Hi0,'"Eway, Beiiesda, tlaryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of del iveIy, i.e., 5-dav, next day (hearirIg site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate oelivery loca'ion, i.e., site of tearing, etc.]
A magnetic tape should be rr,=de of BIid held in stoI aoe at Ace-Federal until further notice by ttIe Project Officer.
BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS 6 };HEPE LAST DAY I l,'STRUCT I OPS Original and 5 next day copies to Pat Wilder, Bethesda pffice (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPEC'IAL Ili'STRUCTIPtlS FOR DI STRI BUTION:
S1Gf(A7URE OF PREPARER IS~2~~~> f17 8W~
DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF tlRITTEN COVF IRhATIOH DATE PERSON CONTACTED
~F,P REAP~
~,.I.(>i:i~~.. g o.S..gmt" '
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATONIICSAFETY AMD LICEMSIMG BOARD PANEL
'LYASMIMGTOM,D.C. 20555 WORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB Distribution JJJ L
123 PWilder JFouchard ELD-MNBB 9604 Central Files 016 ASLAB 529 E/W NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Evidentiary Hearing Power Plant 50-400-OL DOCKET NO{S):
50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
Ramada Inn Date:
Interstate 55 Time:
U.S.
1 South ECU Room Apex.
NC 27502 Nov.
13 9 a.m. - 5:30 p.rn.
PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Ruth Solley (919) 362-8621 U.S. Bankruptcy Courtroom Date:
Nov. 14-16 'hearing ended on the 15th) 300 Fayetteville St. Mall Time:
9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Room 208 person to contact:
Marie Carter
- Raleigh, NC (919) 755-4603 BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
CHAIRMAN James L. Kelley MEMBERS-Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASI BP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/l.'est Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc. 3 A magnetic tape should be made of hEarings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
BOARD STAFF ELD)
OTHERS 5 l HERE Hearing site next day copy LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Ori ginal E
5 copi es to Pat Wi 1 der (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAI INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
All originals to Reproduction - original returned to Jack Whetstine, EM-439, TR 01.
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REDVEST TO REPORTING CO.
>/3/ JP DATE OF IIRITTEN CONFIRFIATION LG~ &./m~ Z~
I~dP DATE cf -Z~
PERSON CONTACTED '
NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Evidentiary Hearing Power Plant Distribution J
L 12B PWi lder JFouchard MNBB 37(.
UNlTED STATES
'LD fjNBB g604 U
~ E R REGULAToR'. coM""IsslG'l C@n<<ral Files 016
';Qvlc s" FETY AND LICE vslHG BQPRD P
~'!EL ASLAB 529 P T"1CLearen AR 2233 WORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB 21 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S): 50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
Ramada Inn Interstate 55 U.S.
1 South ECU Room A ex NC
.27502 U.S. Bankruptcy Courtroom 300 Fayetteville St. Mall Room 208
- Raleigh, NC EEDING:
Oct. 16,18,19, 23-26, November 1,6 um 7
U.S. Bankruptcy Courtroom - Oct. 17, 30 8
31 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Ruth Solley Ramada Inn (919) 362-8621 Mrs. Marie Carter, U.S. Bankruptcy Cour 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
(October 23, 9 a.m. - 10 p.m.)
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:.
CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelle MEMBERS: Glenn 0. Bri ht and James H. Car enter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR 'ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 ast West ig way, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
LPlease. indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e.,'site of hearing, etc.j
'A magnetic tape should be made of hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
t BOARD STAFF ELD) 'THERS 8
WHERE
'.)earing site next day copy LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original 5 5 copies to Pat Wilder (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
All originals to Reproduction - original returned to Jack Whetstine, EW-439, TR Ol.
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION W IG~~
DATE PERSON CONTACTED Av ~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 NORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB 2l-A NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Shearon Harris Nuclear Evidentiary Hearing Power Plant 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S):
50-4010L LOCATION OF PROCEEDING; Federal Building Post Office Court House Room 209 310 New Bern Avenue
- Raleigh, NC 27608 DATE{S) OF PROCEEDING:
- November 2, 1984 (amended to include this date at the above location)
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO,-
Ronda Cathcart (919) 755-4680 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
CHAIRllAN..
James L. Kelley MEMBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East West highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.]
A magnetic tape should be made of hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
BOARD STAFF ELD)
OTHERS 8( WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original 8
5 copies to Pat Wilder {2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
All originals to Reproduction - original returned to Jack Whetstine, EW-439, TR Ol.
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER 1
DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION DATE ld-PERSON CONTACTED
UNITED STAT"S
'.!'~'-'- R=GUL~TGP'l CCP('i:"AISSiG~.'i;:lc Ar TY ~ "30 LICE:.'-'G.".Cr-Ri."~i'iE NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nucl Evidentiary Hearing Power Plant WORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB-85-21-B *amended to cancel Nov. 6 and 7 hearing days 50-40D-OL ear DOCKET NO(S): 50-401<L LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
Ramada Inn Interstate 55 U.S.
1 South ECU Room Apex NC 27502 U.S. Bankruptcy Courtroom 300 Fayetteville St. Mall Room 208
- Raleigh, NC.
h
( J CEEDING:
Oct. 16,13,19, 23-26, November 1,6
& 7 U.S. Bankruptcy Courtroom - Oct. 17,.30
& 31 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Ruth Solley Ramada Inn (919) 362-8621 Mrs. Marie Carter, U.S. Bankruptcy Cour A t(b I-rWUL,tt r I rtcuvi-i 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
(October 23, 9 a.m. - 10 p.m.)
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NINBERS:
CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelle MEMBERS: Glenn 0. Bri ht and James H. Car enter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Higlr~iay, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.
1 A magnetic
~ape should be made of hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS
& WHERE earing site
,ext day copy LAST DAY'NSTRUCTIONS Original
& 5 copi es to Pat Wi 1 der (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
All originals to Reproduction - original returned to Jack 4hetstine, EW-439, TR 01-SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAI REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATIOH W G c ~~
DATE ~>+dil.
~~ ~ 1 PERSON CONTACTED
~P,Ia IIECtf(
1p
- .':5: "IlllLy;-"
m la*am UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIVIMISSION ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 NORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB Distribution era JKel 1 ev ELD-iiNBB 9604 Central Files 016 ASLAB-529 ElJ MDuncan-Phil 116 J Fouchard-I'iINBB 3709 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Catawba Nuclear Prehearing Conf. call Station, Units 1
5 2
50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S):
50-401 LOCATION OF PROCEEDING'350 East West Highway East West Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
Friday, October 26, 1984 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE 50--'atricia Wilder 492-7838 TIME(S)
OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
3-4 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
CHAIRMAN James L. Kelley MEMBERS.
Richard F. Foster 5 Paul W. Purdom (univ Robert Build (Iq. on behalf of the Intervenor, Palmetto Alliance DELIYERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Hsg way, Bet esda, Maryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.]
A magnetic tape should be made of-hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
BOARD STAFF ELD OTHERS 5
WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original and 5 next day copies to Pat Sullivan at H Street (This section. for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
2 copies to Staff. at 9604 llNBB (George Johnson)
TR Ol - original r'eturned to EP1easant SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REQUEST'O REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION DATE df'4 PERSON CONTACTED
s v
NORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB 10 I*
Distribution JKelley TMcLearen AR 2223 PWilder JFouchard MNBB 370~
ELD-MNBB 9604 antral Files 016 ASLAB-529 EW Jean Lee 128 NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Evidentiary Hearing Power Plant 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S):
50 401 OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
Raleigh Civic Center 500 Fayetteville St. Mall
- Raleigh, NC 27601 DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
- Sept,.
5-7, 10-14
& 17-21 (week of 17-21 is canceled)
PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Carol Mann (919) 755-6011 TIME(S)
OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS'HAIRMAN:
James L. Kelley MEMBERS.
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Car'penter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript and one magnetic tape to SLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.]
BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS- & WHERE Hearing site next day copy LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original
& 5 copies to Pat Wilder (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
All originals to Reproduction - original returned to Jack Whetstine, EW-439, TR Ol.
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER D
DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING'O.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION I
DATE
$ l+
PERSON CONTACTED BY:
M ncaa L
N
WORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB 10 NgiE AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Evidentiary Hearing Power Plant 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S):
50 401 OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
Raleigh Civic Center 500 Fayetteville St. Mall
- Raleigh, NC 27601 DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
Sept.
5-7, 10-14
& 17-21 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Carol Mann (919) 755-6011 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelley MEMBERS:
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript and one magnetic tape to SLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.]
BOARD STAFF (ELD OTHERS
& WHERE Hearing site next day copy LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original
& 5 copies to Pat Wilder (2-day)
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
All originals to Reproduction - original returned to Jack Whetstine, EW-439, TR 01.
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL RE(UEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION PERSON CONTACTED BY:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI IM WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NORK ORDER NO.
NRC LB-B5-NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING Shearon Harris Nuclear Prehearing Conf. Call Power Plant Distribution JKelley TMcLearen AR 2223 PWilder ELD-9604 MNBB Central Files 016 ASLAB-529 EW Jean Lee 128 JFouchard MNBB 3709 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S): 50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East/West Highway
'ast West Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING'ugust 31, 1984 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia gilder '"
'92-7838 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
2:30 - 3:30 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
2346 CHAIRMAN: James L. Kelley MEMBERS: Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript to
- SLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, maryland 20814.
[Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.j A magnetic tape should be made of hearings and held in storage at Ace-Federal until further notice by the Project Officer.
BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS
& WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original and 5 next day copies to Pat Sullivan at H Street (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS fOR DISTRIBUTION:
2 copies to Staff at 9604 MNBB (Charles Barth and Janice Moore)
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER (.-9~~
DATE OF ORAL RE(jUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRIIATION DATE PERSON CONTACTED BY:
MI Y8 LIC fI N-
NORK ORDER NO.
iNRC LB NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Shearon Harris Prehearinq Conference Call Nuclear Power Plant Distributionill.L: A.
223 PWi'i der ELB-9604
~"NBB Cen ral Files 016 ASLAB-529 E!i Jean Lee 128 JFouchard ilfgB 3709 DOCKET NO(S):50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East West Highway East West Towers Room 453
- Bethesda, MD DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
August 27, 1984 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 TIME(S) OF PROCEEDING (FROM-TO):
9: 00 a.m. - 10: 30 a.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
James L. Kelley MEMBERS.
Glenn 0. Bright and James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
Deliver one 2-day copy of the transcript and one magnetic tape to
- SLBP, 43 0 ast/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
LPlease indicate type of delivery, i.e., 5-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, etc.j BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS 8
WHERE LAST DAY INSTRUCTIONS Original and 5 next day copies to Pat Sullivan at H St.
(This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION:
2 copies to Staff at 9604 MNBB (Stuart Treby and Geary Yiizuno)
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION DATE PERSON CONTACTED BY:
NAME AND TYPE OF PROCEEDING:
Prehearing Conference Call
".'ii-,=-D ST '
=S C
Q j, i Q
~
Lt& ~ Il ~ I I ~ Q I~a WORK ORDER NO. LB Shearon Harri s Nucl ear Power Plant Distribution JKelley TMcLearen AQ2223 PWilder ELD MNBB-5604 Centra'1 Files 016 ASLAB-529 EW Jean Lee PHIL 128 JFouchard MNBB 3709 50-400-OL DOCKET NO(S): 50-401-OL LOCATION OF PROCEEDING:
4350 East-Hest Highway Room 453 East West Towers
- Bethesda, MD 20014 PERSON TO CONTACT AND TELEPHONE NO.:
Patricia Wilder 492-7838 DATE(S)
OF PROCEEDING:
August 10, 1984 TIME(S )
OF PROCEEDING
( FROM-TO):
ll a.m.
12 p.m.
BEGIN PAGINATION WITH PAGE NUMBERS:
2205 CHAIRMAN: James L
Ke>>ey MEMBERS Glenn 0. Bright
& James H. Carpenter DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASLBP HEARINGS:
De 1 iver one 2-day copy to ASLBP, 4350 East/West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
t Please indicate type of delivery, i.e., S-day, next day (hearing site only), 2-day, 5-hour; indicate delivery location, i.e., site of hearing, et. j BOARD STAFF (ELD)
OTHERS
& WHERE LAST DAY
- NSTRUCT IONS Original and 5 next day copies to Pat Sullivan at H St.
1 (This section for ASLBP use only)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION' copies to Staff at 9604 MNBB (Charles Barth and Janice Moore)
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER 29 DATE OF ORAL REQUEST TO REPORTING CO.
DATE OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATiON PY) g cCc'~
DATE PERSON CONTACTED
I C I