|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217N7201998-03-31031 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Changes to 10CFR50.55a,inservice Inspection & Inservice Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Components ML20203J9661998-02-27027 February 1998 Comment on GL 98-XX, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps ML18067A6301997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Supporting NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Charges,Tests or Experiments). DD-97-15, Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request1997-06-18018 June 1997 Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request ML20115H7061996-06-0404 June 1996 Submits Addl Info to Support Petition for Rulemaking PRM-72-3 Re Amend to SAR ML18065A0761995-09-13013 September 1995 Comment on Draft Rg DG-1043 Re Proposed Rev 2 to Rg 1.149. New Malfunction Tests Required by Revised Rg Can Be Tested at Required 25% Per Year & Reported in Next 4-yr Testing Rept W/O Rev to Test Plan ML20086D9031995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Generic Ltr Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval.Proposed GL Also Avoids Unnecessary Expense for Requirements That Provide No Benefit ML18064A8201995-06-27027 June 1995 Comment on Proposed GL Re Relocation of Pressure Temperature Limit Curves & Low Temperature Overpressure Protection Sys Limits.Supports Issuance of Ltr ML20085E6541995-06-13013 June 1995 Comment Re Draft NUREG/BR-0199, Responsiveness to Public. Expresses Concern on Dry Cask Storage W/Exemption Given to VSC-24 Cask & Procedures for Unloading & Transport at Plant ML18064A7681995-05-26026 May 1995 Comment on Proposed GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power Operated Gate Valves. ML20073M0621994-09-29029 September 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Addition of NUHOMS 52B Dry Casks to List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks. Objects to Proposed Rule Because of Substantial Differences Between Fuel Rods & Assemblies at Different Plant ML20056E5101993-08-11011 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning ML20012G5301993-02-26026 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Suggests That NRC Conduct Formal Hearing ML20012G5311993-02-24024 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5331993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5341993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5321993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5231993-02-20020 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5251993-02-15015 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20128L9531993-02-10010 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127E8851993-01-15015 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127E8631993-01-14014 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127F0561993-01-0808 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116N9171992-11-12012 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116K9591992-11-0909 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116L4651992-11-0606 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L0501992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116K7851992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L1811992-11-0202 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L2051992-11-0202 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L3341992-10-30030 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Can Not Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L2881992-10-26026 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L1311992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Cannot Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L2841992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L2681992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Can Not Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116K9861992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Deadly Waste Cannot Be Stored Safely.Doe Stated Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20127E1371992-09-16016 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4721992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4081992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4011992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3981992-09-11011 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6611992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3831992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4521992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6241992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D9421992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6331992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4111992-09-0808 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3671992-09-0808 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D7191992-09-0606 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule 1998-03-31
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20071N4031982-10-0505 October 1982 Motion for Indefinite Continuance of Proceeding.Need for Steam Generator Replacement Alleviated Due to Better than Expected Corrosion Performance of Steam Generator Tubes. Future Rate of Corrosion Unpredictable.W/Certificate of Svc ML20038C1621981-12-0808 December 1981 Response Opposing Christa-Maria 811204 Motion for Indefinite Extension of Time to Respond to Licensee & NRC Motions for Summary Dispostion.Time to Respond Already Extended & Contentions Insubstantial.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140B4781981-08-31031 August 1981 Response to Aslab 810824 Order to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed as Untimely.Untimely Filing Due to Misunderstanding Re Computation of Commission Time Limits for Appeal Filings ML20010D1381981-08-17017 August 1981 Brief,In Form of Pleading,On Appeal from ASLB 810721 Order Denying Petition for Hearing Re 810309 Order Confirming Licensee Actions to Upgrade Facility Performance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18046A7511981-05-28028 May 1981 Reply Supporting Util Workers' Union of America & Mi Util Workers Council 810331 Request for Hearing on Overtime Restrictions Imposed by NRC 810309 Order.Requested Hearing Would Not Involve Labor/Mgt Dispute.Proof of Svc Encl ML19343D1661981-03-31031 March 1981 Requests Hearing on Commission 810309 Order.Restrictions on Overtime Were Imposed W/O Consulting Union Which Is Collective Bargaining Agent for Operating,Maint & Const Employees.Commission Stds Are Not as Restrictive ML18046A2561980-12-0101 December 1980 Response to NRC 801107 Requests for Admissions.Admits That Two Manual Containment Isolation Valves in Containment Bldg Penetration 4a Were Found Locked Open on 790911.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18045A7771980-10-0606 October 1980 Motion to Compel More Specific Answers from NRC to Second Round of Interrogatories 1 Through 4.Requested Info Needed in Detail in Order to Determine If Discretion Abused. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML18045A3831980-07-18018 July 1980 Response in Opposition to NRC 800703 Motion for Protective Order Re CPC 800221 Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.Relief Not Warranted Per ALAB-594. W/Certificate of Svc ML18045A2531980-06-13013 June 1980 Supplemental Motion to Compel NRC Response to 800225 Interrogatories 2 Through 5,13 Through 15 & 17.Matl Not Privileged,Relevant or Necessary to Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18045A2241980-05-14014 May 1980 Motion to Compel NRC to Produce Documents Requested in Util Interrogatories 2,3,4,5,12,13,14,15 & 17.Util Will Review NRC Objections Re Other Matls.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML19290D5851980-01-29029 January 1980 Answers to 800117 Notice of Hearing.Noncompliance Item 1 of 791109 Notice of Violation Miscategorized.Civil Penalties Imposed Per 791220 Order Abused Discretion Entrusted to NRC Per Atomic Energy Act ML18043A8131979-05-30030 May 1979 Consumers Power Opposition to Great Lakes Energy Alliance 790509 Prehearing Conference Statement,Amended Contentions & Request for Financial Assistance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19263E8691979-05-0707 May 1979 States Key Issues for Consideration at 790509 Prehearing Conference.Nrc Should Provide Funds to Intervenor So Latter May Exercise Legal Rights & Assist ASLB in Finding of Facts. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269D9241979-05-0404 May 1979 Applicant Answer Opposing Great Lakes Energy Alliance 790420 Response.Response Does Not Cure Defects Found in Earlier Submission.Alliance Petition to Intervene Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19289E9631979-04-20020 April 1979 Responds to Nrc,Consumers Power Co & ASLB Re Intervention in Hearings on Steam Generator Replacement.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19282C3811979-02-27027 February 1979 Great Lakes Energy Alliance Petition to Intervene & Statement of Contentions.W/Attached Article on Pipe Corrosion ML19331A3741974-11-0101 November 1974 Response to Saginaw Intervenors' Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument.Discusses Saginaw Intervenors' Procedural Deficiencies.Requests That Motion Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A3791974-10-0909 October 1974 Memorandum Opposing Saginaw Intervenors' 740930 Petition to Reopen Record &/Or for Reconsideration of Initial Decision. Petition Untimely & Issues Raised Are Insignificant to Plant Safety & Should Be Denied.Proof of Svc Encl 1982-10-05
[Table view] |
Text
..~*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-255 Palisades Nuclear Power License No. DPR-20 Facility MOTION TO COMPEL MORE SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO CONSUMERS' SECOND ROUND OF INTERROGATORIES On August 20, 1980, Consumers Power Company
("Consumers") served the .Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC" or "Staff") with Consumers' Second Round of Interro-gatories. On September 24, 1980, the Staff served its answers to Consumers' interrogatories. As will be established below, the Staff's answer to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3 and 4 are incomplete and insufficiently specific. Therefore, pur-suant to 10 CFR §2.740(f), Consumers requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an order requiring the Staff to provide more specific answers to these interrogatories.
ARGUMENT Interrogatory 1 requested the following information:
List each factor and/or criterion which the Off ice of Inspection and Enforcement utilizes in evaluating whether to 'treat a condition
caused by a single act or series of acts but which persists thereafter as a continuing violation under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act.
The Staff's answer states:
"General guidance is provided in the Statement of Consideration accompanying issuance of 10 CFR 2.205, 36 Fed.
Reg . 16 8 9 4 ( 19 71 ) :
"Furthermore, section 234 of the Act provides that if any. violation is a continuing one, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation for the purpose of computing the applicable civil penalty. In a case where, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, a licensee was not aware of the violation until brought to its attention by the Commission, the computation of the period of violation would normally begin at that time or after the time allowed the licensee for corrective action. On the other hand, if* the*evidence showed that a licensee had knowingly permitted violations to continue, the computation of the period of violation m~ght begin at the time the licensee permitted the violations to continue.
"Given this general guidance, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has broad discretion to determine whether to assess penalties for each day of a continuing item of noncompliance."
In propounding this interrogatory, Consumers is
- seeking to discover the specific factors and criteria applied py the Staff in considering whether to classify an item of noncompliance as single or continuing. The Staff recites the general guidance provided by the Commission to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) , and simply states that this is a matter conferred to the broad discretion of IE. The Staff does not, however, identify any of the spe-cific factors and criteria which are to be considered by IE in the exercise of this discretion.
It is a basic tenet of administative law that agency personnel may not lawfully act beyond the scope of the discretion conferred upon them, and that any such action is invalid. It is also self evident that an evaluation of whether agency action constitutes an abuse of discretion is impossible unless the guidance, factors and criteria which are utilized in exercising this discretion. are identified.
Without this crucial information, Consumers is in no position whatever to determine whether, under the facts of this case; the imposition of civil penalties for each day of noncompliance is authorized under law. Given the obvious importance of this issue to the amount of the fine, if any, ultimately deemed appropriate by the Administrative Law Judge, Consumers must clearly be provided with the information sought.
It may well be that the cinly factors and criteria which IE considers in deciding whether to classify an item of noncompliance as continuing are those identified in the Commission guidance set forth in the Statement of Considerations quoted in the Staff's Answer. If this is the case, the Staff should be instructed to so state. If, however, this
".J is not the c~se, which seems likely in view of the Staff's answer to Interrogatory 2 which explains that the considerations
.identified in the Commission's guidance are not directly applicable to the facts surrounding this case, the Staff should be instructed to identify any other factors or criteria considered by IE in exercising its discretion.
A favorable ruling regarding our motion to compel a more specific answer to Interrogatory 1 would as a matter of course require more specific respons~s to Interrogatories 2-4 in as much as Interrogatories 2-4 merely request that the Staff apply the specific factors and criteria sought in Interro-gatory 1 to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, we have briefly summarized Interrogatories 2-4 and the answers thereto in lieu of quoting them in their entirety.
Interrogatory 2 requests that the Staff relate the
.criteria and factors considered by IE in exercising its discretion regarding the classification of an item of noncompliance as continuing or single to the specific facts
. surrounding Item 1 of noncompliance which is the subject of this proceeding. In its Answer, the Staff merely states that the guidance provided to the Staff in the Statement of Considerations do not "fit exactly" the circumstances surrounding Item 1 of noncompliance, but that given that the incident was not normal or routine, civil penalties are appropriately assessed for each day of noncompliance.
Apparently, the Staff has taken the position that the Commission has conferred upon it the discretion to classify ~n item of noncompliance as continuing if the noncompliance is not "normal". Although Consumers does not believe that the language of the Statement of Policy supports such a position, we submit that the Staff must be required to supply Consumers with the factors, criteria and guidance utilized by the Staff in determining whether a noncompliance is to be dlassified as normal or abnormal. Only then will Consumers be in a position to evaluate whether, pursuant to this guidance, the Item 1 of noncompliarid~ c6ristitutes an "abnormal" violation.
Interrogatory 3 requests that the Staff "identify each factor or criterion which the NRC will rely upon in support of its position that the Administrative Law Judge categorize Item 1 of noncompliance as a cobtinuing item of noncompliance." In answering this interrogatory, the Staff states in a conclusory manner that the "Commission has broad discretion in determining the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use the Commission's available enforcement sanctions and that due to the seriousness of this alleged noncompliance the imposition of civil penalties for each day of noncompliance is appropriate."
Although the Staff sets forth the factors under-lying its belief that Item 1 of noncompliance constituted a
...:5_
serious violation, the Staff does not identify any of the factors or criteria which under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission's regulations, or other Commission guidance permit IE to propose, or the Administrative Law Judge to impose, civil penalties for each day of noncompliance.
If the Staff is stating that there is no such guidance, or that IE and the Administrative Law Judge have absolute discretion to impose penalties on a continuing basis for any noncompliance which exists for more than one day notwithstanding the nature of the noncompliance or surrounding circumstances, it should make its position cl~ar. If, ~p~ever, there exist specific criteria which control the exercise of discretion regarding these matters, the Staff should be compelled to specifically identify these criteria.
Finally, Interrogatory 4 requests that the Staff identify the specific factors and criteria which support Consumers' position that the Administrative Law Judge cate-gorized Item 1 as a noncontinuing violation. The Staff answers that they are not aware of any facts which support this position.
First, Consumers has not requested by way of this Interrogatory any facts whatever. The Interrogatory seeks an identification of factors and criteria, which will pre-sumably be identified in the Staff answer to Interrogatory 1, which may support a ruling by the Administrative Law Judge that Item 1 be classified as a noncontinuing noncompliance.
Accordingly, the Staff should be compelled to provide a response in answer to Interrogatory 4.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Consumers respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an order compelling the Staff to produce more specific answers to Consumers' Interrogatories 1-4.
Respectfully submitted, 7
,#;f,2/d-Alan P. Bielawski One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company DATED: October 6, 1980.
Michael I. Miller Paul M. Murphy ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE In the Matter of:
DOCKET NO. 50-255 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY License No. DPR-20 (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan P. Bielawski, one of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company, certify that copies of the "Motion To Compel More Specific Answers to Consumers' Second Round Of Interrogatories" have been served in the above-captioned matter on the following by depsiting same in United States mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of October, 1980:
Honorable Ivan w. Smith Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Murray, Esq.
Director and Chief Counsel Rulemaking and Enforcement Divisio~
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen G. Burns, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Off ice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Atomic Safety and Liceniing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Judd L. Bacori, Esq.
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan AVenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Alan P. Bielawski DATED: October 6, 1980.
j