|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
.
.)
y >_
_ ::r ~..
d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 v ' ! ! $ 3J . --l
/..
L }i BEFORE THE AT'OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD - .. < ,/
Y In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, --ET AL. ) 50-499 OL (South Texas Project,
)
81 l_Lfi @ '
Units 1 and 2)
)
) April 15, 1981 / h'h '
8 Q ,
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFF'S " NOTICE OF U (
APPEAL AND LIST OF EXCEPTIONS" AND { qb), M,
" MOTION FOR DIRECT CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO E p 10 C.F.R. S 2. 78 5 (d) " g qp' u D The NRC Staff seeks appellate review of the ASLB's March 24, 1981, Memorandum and Order (. Order) granting the motion of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) to compel the identification of individuals who provided information to NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (OIE) during an investigation of construction practices at the South Texas Project site. The NRC Staff had earlier refused to provide l
the identities of these individuals on the grounds that such disclosure is exempted under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790. ("NRC Staff Additional Response to CCANP ' Requests For Information,'"
December 8, 1980, at 2-4),
i
! At the November 19, 1980, prehearing conference, the ASLB l
ruled that motions to compel discovery could be filed at any 9503y time before February 2, 1981. (Tr. 330-331; Second Prehearing Conference Order, Dec. 2, 1981 at 5). In the context of
//
the instant discovery request, this was a considerable extension 8'104220
! G t
beyond the 10 dcys allowed by the Commission's regulations.
(10 C.F.R. S 2. 74'0 (f) ) . CCANP did not file its motion to compel discovery even within this extra time period.-*/ Neverthe-less, the Board found that CCANP had demonstrated good cause for its untimely filing. (Order at 3).
The Staff lists four exceptions to the ASLB's ruling.
First, it contends that the Board should have denied the motion to compel as untimely. Second, it contends that the Board erred in finding that disclosure of the identities of the subject individuals is necessary for a proper decision in this proceeding. Third, it contends that the Board erred in not making the requisite findings under 10 C.F.R. S 2.744.
Fourth, the Staff contends that the ASLB erred in failing to
- make an in camera inspection of the requested information so that it could make the determination required by 10 C.F.R.
S 2.744 prior to ordering disclosure.
The Staff asserts that the ASLB's ruling is reviewable as 1 a final order under the " collateral order doctrine" enunciated 1
in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) and under subsequent cases refining that doctrine. In the alternative, the Staff asks that the Appeal Board permit l
l discretionary interlocutory review pursuant to its authority l
to direct certification of important issues under 10 C.F.R.
! ~
- / "CCANP Motion To Compel NRC Staff To Provide Information,"
March 16, 1981. The Motion to Compel was accompanied by a " Motion For Leave To File Motion Out Of Time To Compel NRC Staff To Provide Information."
l
S 2.718 (i) and S 2.785(b). Finally, the Staff asks that the Appeal Board direct certification of this issue to the Com-mission because "the appeal involves major and novel questions of policy, law and procedure." (Motion for Direct Certifi-cation at 1).
l Applicants support the Staff's request for immediate appellate review. In our view, the issues raised by the Staff's
appeal warrant appellate consideration at this time.- Appli-cants also agree that the ASLB erred in requiring blanket disclosure of the names of individuals who provided information l
to OIE during its investigation at the STP site.
Appellate Review Is Appropriate Whether viewed as an appeal of a final collateral order--**/
-*/ In accordance with the Commission's mandate, however, the public interest demands an expedited hearing on the QA/QC issues presently before the ASLB. Applicants therefore I
request that the Appeal Board (or Commission) set an acceler-ated briefing schedule so that this appeal can be resolved
! without delaying the completion of the expedited portion of l the OL proceeding. Even if this appeal is not decided by the May 12, hearing date set by the ASLB, the Applicants and the Staff could still proceed with their entire case, and the intervenors could proceed with the unaffected portions of their case.
l
- / As the Staff explains, to fall within the " collateral order doctrine," as defined in the federal courts, the challenged order must meet three requirements: (1) the lower court must have fully disposed of the issues sought to be reviewed l on appeal; (2) the challenged order must not have been a
! mere step toward the final judgment on the merits, but must be collateral to the cause of action asserted; and l (3) the lower court ruling must affect important rights which would be irreparably lost if review of the challenged order had to await final judgment and hence, to be effective, appellate review must be immediate. Abney v. United States, l 431 U.S. 651, 658, 97 S.Ct. i'34, 2040 (1977); Coopers & Lybrand v.
l Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2458 (1978); Unitec States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1207 (5th Cir. 1977).
(
I
,~
or as a request for discretionary interlocutory review,-*/ the issue tha't the s'taff seeks to have reviewed warrants appellate ,
consideration at this time. Central to both doctrines of appellate review is the notion that the ruling in question will cause immediate and irreparable injury to the rights affected by that ruling which cannot be properly protected by a later appeal. Such is the case at bar.
The ASLB's Order requires the Staff to immediately divulge the identities of those individuals who provided information to investigators from OIE during an investigation of construction practices at the STP site. The Board has also stated that it will require the Staff to reveal the names of informants, and possibly require their appearance as witnesses, at the evidentiary hearings scheduled to begin on May 12, 1981.
Even if those names are released only under a protective order and if those individuals are called only at in camera sessions of the hearing, it is obvious that release of the identities of these individuals could irreparably affect the commission's ability to conduct its governmental functions.
- / The Appeal Board has stated that it will undertake discretionary interlocutory review only in those exceptional cases where: (1) the party adversely affected by that ruling may suffer immediate and serious irreparable harm; or (2) the challenged ruling affects the structure of the proceeding in a basic and unusual manner. E.c., Pennsylvania Power
& Light Co.(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-593, 11 NRC 761, 762 (1980); Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-572, 10 NRC 693, 694 (1979).
In its instant pleading, the Staff has expressed a concern that exposure of informants in this case will have a negative impact on the Staff's ability, during future investi-gations, to obtain information affecting public health and safety. Thus, the issue which the Staff seeks to have addressed involves considerations of the public interest which go beyond the instant proceeding, and would seem to fall within the class of issues which could properly be referred to the Appeal Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730 (f) . -*/
Finally, the issues raised by the Staff appear to derive from final collateral rulings which are reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. Southern Methodist University Ass'n. v.
Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979). The ASLB has issued j its final ruling on the disclosure issue and that issue is not a step toward final judgment, but rather is collateral to the issue of the Applicants' qualifications to obtain an
operating license.
- / A party seeking directed certification must establish, at a minimum, that referral pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
l S 2.730 (f) would have been appropriate. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
i ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 483 (1975).
- / It is not clear whether the collateral order doctrine, as enunciated in the federal courts, is directly applicable in NRC proceedings, or whether somewhat different standards, similar to those governing directed certification, are to l be applied. See, Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse l Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752, 758 (1975).
l
Applicants also support the Staff's request that this issue be certified to the Commission so that the Commission can, if it wishes, rule immediately and avoid potential additional delay. The ASLB, in accordance with the Commission's directive to hold an " expedited hearing" on the QA/QC issues, has set a May 12, 1981, date for the commencement of evidentiary hearings so that these hearings might be completed by this summer. Such completion might well be frustrated if the issues raised by this appeal were to be reviewed sequentially by the Appeal Board and then the Commission.
CCANP'S Motion To Compel Should Have Been Rejected As Untimely As stated above, CCANP waited approximately six weeks before filing its motion to compel. It did so in the face of an explicit ASLB caveat that:
In view of the Commission's emphasis upon an expedited hearing, we expect the parties to adhere to the foregoing schedule as closely as possible. Modifications will not be granted absent a strong showing of good cause.
(Second Prehearing Conference Order, December 2, 1980, at 7).
In its motion for leave to file out of time, filed with the ASLB on March 16, CCANP claimed that good cause existed for its late filing because counsel hired by CCANP in November 1980, failed to fully carry out their responsibilities, including a failure to timely file motions to compel discovery from the )
Staff. l 1
Applicants have recently argued to the Appeal Board that
~
this excuse _s not good cause for an untimely filing. Inter-vention in NRC proceedings carries with it not only the rights afforded by the Commission's rules of practice, but also the responsibilities which those rules impose. Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License For Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
LBP-75-67, 2 NRC 813, 815 (1975). A party organization cannot retain counsel of its own choosing, have no member of the organization work with counsel to assure that the organization's litigation objectives are being served, and then belatedly claim the right to additional time because its cause was not fully advanced by chosen counsel. This is especially trua in the case at bar, since the Commission has ordered an expedited hearing, and CCANP's delay in filing its motion to compel threatens to prevent timely resolution of the legal questions CCANP now raises. If the Staff is now compelled to provide the names of its informants, delays will occur in order to complete such further disclosure and to prepare any additional resulting testimony. The ability to complete this proceeding in a timely
-**/
fashion will be seriously compromised. -
- / " Applicants' Response to Citizens' Notic' of Appeal" at 7 through 9; " Applicants' Response to Citizens' Notice of Appeal and Request for Directed Certification" at 5 through 6 (both dated April 9, 1981).
~~
The untimeliness of CCANP's motion to compel should be an independent basis for reversal of the ASLB's decision. How-ever, since the ASLB has stated that it will require identi-fication of the informants at the hearing, sua sponte, (Order at 8) either the Commission or the Appeal Board should weigh the policy considerations raised by this appeal and deternine whether blanket disclosure at the evidentiary hearings would be appropriate.
d The ASLB Erred In Requiring BT.nket Disclosure of Identities The Staff has identified the important competing policy considerations that must be weighed in deciding whether to require disclosure of individuals who have provided information to the Staff with a promise of anonymity. (Motion For Direct Certifica-tion at 4-8). The Applicants recognize the importance of both considerations. Since our interests are directly affected by the actions of the Staff's investigatory arm, in the abstract we can appreciate the desirability of obtaining the identities of such informants so that we can protect our interests in proceedings before the Commission.
However, on balance, Applicants believe that the ASLB's ruling, requiring blanket disclosure of identities without a particularized showing of need, unnecessarily threatens the integrity of this and future Staff investigations. Con-sistent with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. S 2.744, disclosure should be required only where a requesting party makes a strong showing that the identity of a specific individual is indispen-sable to a sound decision in the proceeding, and that the informa-tion sought by the requesting party cannot be obtained by any means other than disclosure. Since the Staff has revealed the substance of tha information it obtained from each informant, and CCANP has made no showing that the identity of any informant
is necessary, its motion to compel should be denied.-*/
Apart from CCANP's motion, the ASLB has indicated that it will require the Staff, at the upcoming hearings, to provide-the names of all the informants and may call them as witnesses.
(Order at 8). This ruling is not only premature, but is also in error. Applicants respectfully request that the Appeal Board rule that the ASLB should not require that informants be identified unless, as the testimony at the hearing unfolds, the ASLB determines that identification of a specific informant is indispensable to a sound decision in the proceeding and that the information that might be obtained from such informant
cannot be obtained by any other means.--
Conclusion:
For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicants urge the Appeal l
Loard to direct certification of the Staff's appeal to the Cormission, or in the alternative, to undertake appellate review at this time of the important policy questions raised l by the Staff's notice of appeal.
1 In addition, Applicants request that, if it undertakes appellate review at this time, the Appeal Board (or Commission)
- / If CCANP had made any such showing as to any particular l informant based on the information already revealed by the l Staff, the ASLB could have resorted to in camera review of the identity of such informant and any additional related information the Staff could provide to determine the necessity for ordering the disclosure of that informant's identity.
(See 10 C.F.R. S 2.744 (d)) . However, this step is not necessary in light of CCANP's failure to make a showing as to any informant.
- / A similar position was expressed by the Staff at the March 17, 1981 prehearing conference. (Tr. 679-80).
set an expedited briefing schedule so as to minimize any potential delay c'aused by the Staff's appeal.
Respectfully submitted, 8ae4+CJ Jack R. Newman Maurice Axelrad p Sp3. g, David B. Raskin 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Finis E. Cowan Thomas B. Hudson, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTINC &
POWER COMPANY, Project Manager of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and the j other Applicants, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS OF COUNSEL:
LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS,
& AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza i
Houston, Texas 77002 l
1 d
= - -- , - . - - - - , , . . , . - - - - . , . . , , , ,-..,--.,, ,, , , , , , , _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, ) April 15, 1981 Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Response to the NRC Staff's " Notice of Appeal and List of Exceptions" and " Motion for Direct Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.785 (d)" have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or by hand delivery as indicated by an asterisk, on this 15th day of April, 1981.
Richard S. Salzman* Dr. James C. Lamb III Chief Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing 313 Woodhaven Road Appeal Board Chapel Hill, NC 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Dr. John H. Buck
- Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Administrative Judge University of California Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 808, L-123 Appeal Board Livermore, CA 94550 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Mrs. Peggy Buchorn l
Executive Director Christine N. Kohl
- Citizens for Equitable Administrative Judge Utilities, Inc.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Route 1, Box 1634 i Appeal Board Brazoria, TX 77422 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Brian Berwick, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.* for the State of Texas Chief Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Atomic Safety and Lir:ensing Division i Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, TX 78711 l
Washington, D. C. 20555 l
l Kim Eastman, Co-c'oordinator l Barbara A. Miller l
Pat Coy Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 5106 Casa oro San Antonio, TX 78233 Lanny Sinkin l 2207-D Nueces Austin, Texas 78705 l Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.*
i Office of the Executive j Legal Director l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Washington, D. C. 20555 l
l Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l
l (YY l
l l
I l
!