|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20070E4671991-02-26026 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Upgrading Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors.Recommends That NRC Deny Petition to Increase Design Basis Threat for Security ML20207C1331986-12-18018 December 1986 Order Terminating CPPR-81 & CPPR-82,per Util 860711 Motion to Withdraw Applications for OLs ML20215E7301986-12-17017 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Authorizing Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissing OL Proceeding,Per Applicant 860711 Motion. Served on 861218 ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding ML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20214Q4431986-12-0303 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204 ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214T7361986-09-26026 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Dismissing OM Proceeding as Moot & Deferring Action on Applicant Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application Pending NRC Preparation of Environ Assessment.Served on 860929 ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212B0311986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Withdrawing Retention of Jurisdiction Over Radon Issue Presented in Facility CP Proceeding & Vacating ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils in Consolidated CP Mod & OL Proceeding.Served on 860801 ML20212B0521986-07-31031 July 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860815 for Util & Other Parties to Respond to Questions Posed by 860716 ASLB Order.Time Extended Until 860825 for NRC Response to ASLB Questions & Util Motion.Served on 860801 ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E2851986-07-16016 July 1986 Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717 ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20137E0041985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding ML20137D9651985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F6421985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N3771985-08-30030 August 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl DD-84-17, Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 8506241985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 850624 ML20127N7591985-06-20020 June 1985 Transcript of Commission 850620 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc Concerning Denial of 2.206 Petition for Midland plant,SECY-85-60 Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule & Shoreham Order.Pp 1-4 ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J4751985-04-19019 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850405 Order Re Dismissal of OL Application.Application Neither Abandoned Nor Delayed in Dilutory Manner.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA ML20092J0241984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl 1991-02-26
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20084J6111984-05-0404 May 1984 Responds Opposing Sinclair 840419 Motion to Request Caseload Forecast Panel Evaluate New Const Completion Schedule.Aslb Should Deny Request for Relief Contained in Motion. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084H2581984-05-0202 May 1984 Memorandum in Opposition to Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 840417 Petition for Review.Gap Policy on Disclosures to Press Rules Out Genuine Claim That Affidavits Were to Be Maintained in Total Confidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N6481984-04-17017 April 1984 Petition for Review of Aslab 840330 Decision & Order ALAB-764 Re Subpoenas Directed to Govt Accountability Project.Aslab Erroneous Re Important Questions of Law & Policy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M9821984-03-30030 March 1984 Response to B Stamiris 840304 New Contention Re Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators.Bases in Support of Contention Clarified.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079M6481984-01-23023 January 1984 Request for Leave to File Encl Corrected Copies of Applicant 831209 Memorandum in Opposition to Appeal of Govt Accountability Project.Table of Contents & Table of Authorities Inadvertently Omitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082U0311983-12-0909 December 1983 Memorandum Opposing Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 831021 Appeal of ASLB Order Granting Util Motion to Depose Gap Witnesses.First Amend Argument Inapplicable Since Affiant Identity Will Not Be Disclosed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E1341983-11-22022 November 1983 Request for Extension Until 831209 to File Brief Opposing Appeal of Govt Accountability Project Deponents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086A8801983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Util Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas.Submission to Discovery Would Cause Immediate Grave & Irreparable Injury to Organizational Viability.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20081F8991983-11-0202 November 1983 Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas Against Govt Accountability Project Deponents,L Clark, T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg.Response from Deponents Must Be Filed Before 831110.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E8931983-10-31031 October 1983 Reply to Applicant 831014 Response to Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of B Stamiris 831005 Motion to Litigate Two Dow Issues.Issues Timely Raised & Present New Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H4271983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Continue Beginning Date of Hearings Scheduled for 831031 to 3 Days After Date.Extended Hearing Necessary to Allow Time to Receive Responses to 831011 Discovery Requests.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090H3401983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion for Admission Into Evidence of Transcript of Jl Donnell 831015 Deposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E9481983-10-25025 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of 831021 Appeal of ASLB Orders Granting Issuance of Subpoenas.Subpoenas Violate First Amend Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B1751983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion to Compel CPC Responses to 831011 Interrogatories & Request for Production Re Investigation of Alleged Violation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B0681983-10-21021 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Appeal from ASLB Orders Granting Discovery Against Govt Accountability Project.Subpoenas Violate Common Law of Privilege.Util Showed No Compelling Need for Discovery ML20078K3141983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to B Stamiris 831005 Second Supplemental Memorandum Supporting Dow Issues.Stamiris Fails to Show New & Significant Info Justifying Reopening Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F5561983-10-0505 October 1983 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Intervenor Stamiris Motion to Litigate Dow Chemical Co Issues Against Applicant.Dow Documents & Complaints Support Litigation of Issues Raised in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P9131983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion to Stay Depositions of L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg as Directed in ASLB 830831 Order.Depositions Should Be Stayed Pending Review of 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P1161983-10-0303 October 1983 Errata to 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078A3471983-09-21021 September 1983 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 830808 Motion to Litigate Dow Issues.Documents Reveal That Util Knew Fuel Load Dates Presented to NRC Jul 1980 - Apr 1983 False. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077S7161983-09-19019 September 1983 Motion by L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg for Extension Until 830930 to File Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830831 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8261983-09-0202 September 1983 Response Opposing M Sinclair Motion to Reconsider Privilege Ruling.Presence of Bechtel Officials at 821124 Meeting Does Not Destroy Privilege.Bechtel & CPC Share Common Legal Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8771983-09-0202 September 1983 Motion to Reconsider Schedule for Submitting Proposed Findings of Fact on Remedial Soils Issues.Intervenors Should Be Required to File Proposed Findings on Remedial Soils Issues by 831115.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076F3261983-08-23023 August 1983 Motion for Extension Until 830902 to Respond to Intervenor Motion to Reconsider Order Upholding atty-client Privilege Protection for 821124 Util/Bechtel Meeting.Motion Received 5 Days After Mailing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076C6711983-08-17017 August 1983 Response to M Sinclair & B Stamiris 830728 Motions Re Dow Vs Util Lawsuit.Aslb Should Defer Motions for 30 Days.Motions Could Be Refiled After Documents Reviewed.Two Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards in Pdr.Certificate of Svc Encl 1986-08-25
[Table view] |
Text
-
c//z/B/
. s -,
e gh 4 L I M
=da; ssos a
=
ED STATES OF AMERICA
! =.?
\ s' b NUGL R REGULATORY COMMISSION (y
% ice %fy O
/ ^/7 ;..
% 6 In th ) U C
^
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM/OL
) 50-330 OM/OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2))
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION ON QUALITY ASSURANCE ISSUES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1979 ORDER AND CONTENTIONS INVOLVING QUALITY ASSURANCE AND MANAGERIAL ATTITUDE The Applicant, Consumers Power Company, requests that the Licensing Board (" Board") issue a partial initial decision in this proceeding, resolving those matters for which evidentiary hearings were held in July and August, 1981. The partial decision involves: (1) all quality assurance aspects of the December 6, 1979 Order Modifying Construction Permits (" Order") ; and (2) all managerial attitude issues raised by Ms. Stamiris in her contentions 1 (a) , 1 (b) , 2, and 3 and the " examples" outlined in her Answers to Interrogatories, filed April 20, 1981.
l Such a decision is appropriate at this time.
First, since the evidentiary record on these matters is l
! complete, Board findings will retain their validity.
I Second, an early resolution of the issues will benefit the i
public by assuring that the remedial work, when authorized, i can begin promptly and in accordance with the decision.
Finally, since any findings will be subject to reconsideration s0 D
9 g0 \
8109160096 810902 DR ADOCK 05000
k should any supervening developmer.ts warrant, none of the parties will be prejudiced by such an initial resolution.
DISCUSSION 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, I(c) (1) permits a Licensing Board to consider particular issues in separate hearings and render partial decisions on them:
The... licensing board may, consider...a particular issue or issues separately from, and prior to, other isssues relating to the effect of the con-struction and/or operation of the facility upon the public health and safety, the common defense cnd security, and the environment or in regard to antitrust considerations....The board designated to conduct the hearing will issue an initial decision, if deemed appropriate, which will be dispositive of the issue (s) considered at the hearing, in the absence'of an appeal or Commission or Appeal Board review pursuant to SS2.760 and 2.762, before the hearing on, and consideration of, the remaining issues in the proceeding.
Those factors to be evaluated in determining whether such a procedure is appropriate were outlined in Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539, 547 (1978):
(i) the degree of likelihood that any early findings cn the issue (s) would retain their validity; (2) the advantage, if any, to the public int.erest and to the litigants in having an early, if not necessarily conclusive, resolution of the issue (s); and (3) the extent to which the hearing of the issue (s) at any early stage would, particularly if the issue (s) were later reopened because of supervening developments, occasion prejudice to one or more of the litigants.
In the present case, the hearings have been and will continue to be held on a topic by topic basis. See Trans. at 4394. The proceedings dealing with the topics y' of quality assurance and the managerial attitude contentions have been completed. In light of the Douglas Point factors it is appropriate to issue a decision with respect to t;.e topics already covered.
- 1. The initial findings on quality assurance and managerial attitude will retain their validity.
Any initial findings on the issues of qualit, assurance and managerial attitude will retain their validity.
The record of these issues is complete. In addition, it ir.
unlikely that any new information concerning these iscues will be developed in the upcoming sessions.
Four weeks of testimony in July and August, 1981, were devoted to evidence relating to the quality assurance and managerial attitude issues and the substantive evi-dentiary presentations on these issues are complete. The testimony and documentation presented exhaustively addressed the past and present operation of the quality assurance program at Midland. Both Staff and Applicant witnesses testified concerning each specific example of managerial attitude raised by Barbara Stamiris in her contentions and her Answers to Interrogatories.
The remainder of the proceedings are technical in nature and will concentrate on the adequacy of the proposed solutions to settlement related problems. Future proceedings will involve the site-specific response spectra, the diesel generator building structure, the service water pu.ap structure, the auxiliary building, underground piping, permanent dewater-ing and the borated water storage tank foundation ring. Trans.
. , - . - - - , . -~ - .-. - . .-
f at 4394.
The regulatory underpinnings of the issues to be considered in these future proceedinas are unrelated to the standards pertaining to the quality cSsurance and management attitude questions considered in the past sessions. The quality assurance program and managerial attitude concerning its implementation must be measured against the standards in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B criteria. The technical adequacy of solutions to the soils settlement problems are not governed by these regulatory standards.
The nature of the evidence to be presented in the upcoming sessions differs from that covered in the past hearings. The focus of the past hearings was on management, its response to raccamendations received from consultants and its attitude in directing the construction of the Midland facility in accordance with NRC regulations. The focus of the upcoming sessions, on the other hand, will be on the technical efficacy of each proposed remedy itself, a subject separate and distinct from managerial attitude and quality assurance.*
- For this reason the partial decision is not proposed for Stamirls contention 1(d) , an allegation that the Applicant did not provide adequate information con-cerning " acceptance criteria" for the remedial actions.
The managerial attitude aspects of contention 1(d) were discussed in the July and August sessions. See, e.g.,
Trans. at 2676-89, (cross-examination of Darl Hood),
and Trans. at 3212-19 (cross-examination of Dr. Ralph Peck). The Board ruled, however, that because of the complexity of the technical considerations in the
" acceptance criteria" aspect of the contention, the evidentiary presentations on that aspect would be defered to later proceedings. Trans. at 2657. No similar ruling was made on the other contentions.
( Thus, for both legal and practical reasons, the findings made from the early segments will not be affected by later proceedings. Cf. Pennsylvania Power and Lighi-Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Sus-quehana Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-18, 11 NRC 906 (1980).
- 2. The public interest will be advanced by the issuance of a partial decision.
A partial decision resolving the quality assurance and managerial attitude issues would benefit the public.
Indeed, it is the timing of the partial decision which is paramount. The benefit results regardless of the substance of the decision. If the Board issues findings in the applicant's favor, the applicant can confidently direct resources to maintaining and improving its quality assurance program and its implementation. If the decision outlines further requirements the applicant must meet, then resources can be immediately directed toward accomplishing them so that any authorized remedial work can begin promptly and in accordance with the Board's dictates.
The Board and the Staff have already acknowledged that in constructing the Midland plant there is a need to resolve some issues prior to the ultimate resolution of the December 6, 1979 Order. Thus the installation of a portion of the backup interceptor wells has been resolved and work is going forward. In all probability Applicant will request Staff concurrence on other remedial work prior to the I
/ ultimate resolution of the Order. A partial initial de-cision on quality assurance and management attitude will expedite that process.
Douglas Point, dealing with the questions of environmental findings, noted that an early decision bene-fits the public by obviating " wasteful expenditures of both time and money...by alerting the applicant promptly" of the needs which must be met to ensure plant safety. Douglas Point, supra, at 546. Similarly here, a decision at a time early enough for the parties to effectively anticipate and ameliorate any concerns rather than retroactively take them into account makes "the resultant benefit to the public (not just the applicant) . . . manifest. " Id.
- 3. A partial decision will not prejudice any party.
A partial decision would not result in any pre-judice to any of the parties should a reopening of the hearing because of supervening developments be necessary.
Any findings made in advance of a final decision are always rendered subject to new and supplementary in-formation. Douglas Point, supra, at 545 and 552.* As the case now stands, such a reopening would not place any additional burden on any of the litigants.
The parties have already expended resour s on an For example, if it is deemed necessary, the Board may have further inquiries regarding the Staff's close out of the FSAR re-review item of noncompliance in the 80-32 Inspection Report. (Attachment 3 to Staff Testimony on Contention 3). Trans. at 4197.
, k
evidentiary presentation pertaining to qua' _ ,2 assurance and managerial a :titude issues. Indeed, to reschedule or expand the future hearings to include any of these matters now would probably necessitate a preliminary showing by a party proposing reopening, that the matter is significant to piant ,
safety and requires further evidentiary hearings. An identical burden is placed on a party seeking to reopen
! hearings after a partial decision has been rendered. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Powe- Station) ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520 (1973). The burden placed on a party seek 3e.g to reopen a question is the same regardless of whether a decision issues at all. Thus, a partial decision now would not impose additional burden on any of the parties.
More importantly, as the Douglas Point decision noted, "the convenience of litigants cannot be deemed dis-positive on scheduling matters. The paramount consideration is where the broader public interest lies." Douglas Point supr:, at 552. In this case, as discussed supra, early resolution of the quality assurance and managerial attitude issues would best serve the public interest.
- 4. Proposed filing schedule A filing timetable for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law was developed at the January 28, 1981 Prehearing Conference. Trans. 760-771. In accordance with it, Applicant submits the following schedule for the filing of proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law for a
f partial decision regarding managerial attitude and quality assurance issues:
October 19, 1981: Applicant submits proposed findings of fact and con-clusions of law.
November 3, 1981: Intervenors submit proposed findings of fact and con-clusions of law.
November 13, 1981: Staff submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
November 23, 1981: Applicant submits reply.
CONCLUSION Applicant submits that an initial partial decision on quality assurance aspects of the Order and Stamiris con-tentions 1, 1 (a) , 1(b), 2, ar.d 3 and the examples outlined in her Answers to Interrogatories will best serve the inter-est of the public and the parties in this case. The earlier the decision issues in these matters, the more effectively resources can be directed in assuring the facility is safely constructed. Since no further evidentiary hearinos on these matters are scheduled, it is likely that the findings will retain their validity. Finally, no prejudice will result to any litigant ir the decision issues now.
Respectfully submitted, k.
Alan S. Farnell Counsel for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500 UNITED STATES OF AM~ DICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OM
) 50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-330-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan S. Farnell, hereby certify that a co;7 of Applicant's Motion for Partial Decision on Quality Assurance Issues of the December 6, 1979 Order and Contentions In-volving Quality Assurance and Managerial Attitude was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 2nd day of September, 1981.
0 k.
Alan S. Farnell
SERVICE LIST
{I Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Steve Galdler, Esq.
Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Pnl.
Environme'tal Protection Div. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 720 Law Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. C. R. Stephens Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Chief, Docketing & Service Section One IBM Plaza Office of the Secretary Suite 4501 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60611 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Ms. Mary Sinclair RFD 10 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan 48640 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. William D. Paton, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Counsel for the NRC Staff a Bd. Pnl. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Pnl.
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6152 N. Verde Trail Washington, D. C. 20555 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Admin. Judge Ralph S. Decker Route 3 Route No. 4, Box 190D Freeland, Michigan 48623 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Carroll E, Mahaney James E. Brunner, Esq. Babcock & Wilcox Consumers Power Company P. O. Box 1260 212 West Michigan Avenue Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Jackson, Michigan 49201
.