ML20010H272
| ML20010H272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1981 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8109240289 | |
| Download: ML20010H272 (9) | |
Text
,
t September 22, 19
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA yr
'c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
,//
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND l.ICENSING BOARD '?
k'h@b,'j IJi
^
i t; i g
~/
(
Y
\\/
In the Matter of
)
' g,
~
CONSUMERS POWER C0!-iPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL l
50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION ON QUALITY ASSURANCE ISSUES l
I.
INTRODUCTION On September 2,1981, the Applicant, Consumers Power Company, filed a motion requesting the Board to issue a partial decision in the captioned proceeding resolving certain matters on which evidentiary hearings were held in July and August 1981. The partial decision which the Applicant seeks v
.olve:
(1) all quality assurance aspects of the December 6,1979 Order Modifying Construction Pennits; 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 l
l Interrogatories, filed April 20, 1981.
Applicant also proposed a schedule for filing proposed findings of fact cnd conclusions of law on the above matters.
For the reasons discussed below, the Staff supports the Applicant's motion.
7 D5.s f
8109240289 810922 PDR ADOCK 05000329 G
PDR d
II.
DISC'JSSI$N In support of its motion, Applicant points out that the Commission's Rules of Practice give Licensing Boards tM discretion to render partial initial decisions on issues considered in separate hearings and that the rendering of such a decision at this time would meet the A,ependix A critera.M Applicant, in support of its ectina relies upon the Appeal Board decision in Fotomac Electric Power Company (Dauglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539, 547 f
(1975), in which the Appeal Board identified the factors which it thought appropriate to weigh in considering when separate hearings should be held on specific issues:
(1) tht: degree of likelihood that any early findings on the issue (s) would retain their validity; (2) the advantage.if any, to the public interest and to the litigints in having an early, if not necessaril conclusive, resolution of th6 issue (s); and (3)ythe extent to which the hearing of the issue (s) at a..
early stage would, particularly if the issue (s) wt:re later reopened because of supervr:ning developments, occasion prejudice to one or more of the litigants.
At 547.
Applicant asserts that considention of the Douglas Point fectors
(
favors the granting of its motion.
First, according to Aopiicant, the findings made on the quality aburance/ management attitude issues on which the decision is sought would retain their validity, as the upcoming hearings concern issues which are unrelated to those considered in the l
y 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, I(c)(1) l l
l i
l
hearings ileid in July and August 1981.E Second, applicant identifies the quality assurance / management attitude issues as issues whose resolution prior to the ultimate resolution of the December 6,1979 Order is in the public interest.E Finally, Applicae,t sees no prejudice to any party arising from a partial decision as the burden placed on a party seeking to reopen after a partial decision has been renderad is identical to that which would be necessary in order to schedule further hearings on quality assurance / management attitude where adectsionispending.O While the Douglas Point decision addresses the appropriateness of going forward with separate hearings in the context of a construction l
permit proceeding, a situation dissimilar to the instant proceeding, the Staff believes that the factors identified above provide appropriate
,;u! dance in considering the Applicant's position.
1.
i_ikelihood that findings made would retain their validity. As observed by the Applicant, the proceeding with respect to the topics on which 6 partial decision is sought is essentially completed.N The totality of evidence addressing the contentions on these ratters which the parties wish to present has in fact been presented.
Furthermore, y
Applicant's Motion, 3-5.
y
,Id, 5-6.
y Id., 6-7.
y See discussion on page 6 regarding matter to be addressed at the hearing to start on October 13, 1981.
}
-4 as this case has been structured, these issues are separate from the the remaining contentions. Accordingly, the validity proposed findir,gs and issuance of a partial decision at this time will not likely be affected by consideratic.i of the remaining issues and subsequent decision thereon by the Board.
Advytage to the litigants and ouolic interest in an early resolution 2.
Although partial decisions are not typically rendered ir, enforcement-type proceedings such as this, the Staff believes that the interest of both the litigants and public would be served by prompt resolution of these t
The Applicant, on its behalf, has adequately stated the benefit matters.
to it of issuance of a partial decision on these matters by expediting the improvements of deficiencies in its quality assurance program.
Similarly, as a consequence of itt regulatory obligations, the Staff will be benefitted by enabling it to assure appropriate and timely implementation of the program through its inspection activities.
With respect to bitervenor Stamiris, it would also appesr that a decision on these matters at the earliest possible time would be odvantageous; the issues on which a part ai l decisicn is sought are a keystone in assuring remedial actions undertaken at a later time are properly carried out. Consequently, matters identified by the Board in its partiel decision as requiring further improvements by tne I
5-Applicant could be more effectively addressed before remedial actions are accomplished.
The public interest in this instance, is best served, in our opinion, by a prompt resolution of these issues and the prompt cure of any deficiencies noted in the Applicant's program, if any, to assure that the health and safety of the public is protected.
3.
Prejudice to the litigants.
Each of the prrties wat afforded a full opportunity to present evidence and etherwise participate on these issues before the Licensing Board and each will have available the full spectrum of appeallate procedures should any part be dissatisfied with the Board's decision, as well as the opportunity to seek to reopen the record under appropriate circumstances. Thus, it appears that no prejudice will Nsult to any party.
Finally, the Staff notes that the Statement of Considerations 1
accompanying the 1973 amendment of Section 1(c) of Appendix A of 10 C.F.R. Part 2 states that the Commission expected that the
[
amendmeyt, expanding Section I(c) to make specific provision for separate hearings on issues appropriate for separate consideration, would further the put'lic interest in sound decisions arrived at in a t
l timely fashion by pert.ittin, the resolution of crucial or potentially dispositive issues in licensing proceedings at the earliest practicable junctu re. 38 Fed Reg. 3398 (February 6,1973).
l l
, ~ -
g e
y
.' 2 III. PROPOSED SCHEDULE The filing schedule proposed by Applicant at page 7 of its motion seems reasonable to Staff; accordingly, Staff has no objection to its adoption by the Board.
The Staff is aware of one issue on which the evidentiary record w3s left open. At Tr. 3929-31 and 4196-7 the Board expressed an interest in the Staff's position with respect to Applicant's Ne view of its FSAR as discussed in inspection report 80-32, The Staff will ae preijired to present its position on that matte: ar. t.N eviclattary Wring now scheduled for October 13-16. This will al b: time for C ', rties to address the adeou6cy of the Applicant's rereview of its FSAR in proposed findings submitted pursuant to the schedule suggested by Applicant in its Motion.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Staff supports Applicant's motion for a oartial decison.
Respectfully submitted, Ann P. Hodgdon
[
l Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 22nd day of September,1981.
P a
9/?2/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
N'ICLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER C0fiPANY
)
Docict No. 50-329 OM l
50-330 OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) p0TICEOFAPPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an apped.rance in the above-captioned matter.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.713(a), the following information is provided:
Name:
Ann P. Hodgdon Address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C.
20555 Telephone Number:
(301) 492-7148 Admissions:
District of Columbia Court of Appc:ls Naine of Party:
NRC Staf' VVA
~ L \\o g
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for URC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of September,1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) j CERTIFICATE OF SERVI _C_E I hereby c,".ify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR ARTIAL DECISION ON QUALITY ASSURANCE ISSUES" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Conv,ission's internal cail system, this 22nd day of September,1931 :
Charles Bechboefer, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Administrative Judge Ronald G. Ze.srin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alan S. Farneil, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D.C.
20555
- One First National Plaza 42nd Floor Ralph S. Decker Chicago, Illinois 60603 Administrative Judge Route #4, Box 1900 James E. Brunner, Esq.
Cambridge, MD 21613 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Jackson, Michigan 49201 Administrative Judge 6152 N. VerJe Trail Ms. Barbara Stamiris Apt. B-125 5795 N. River Boca laton, Florida 33433 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Frank J. Kelley Mr. Steve Gadler Attorney Ge'neral of the State 2120 Carter Avenue of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Steward H. Freeman 1
Assistant Attorney General Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Environmental Protection Division Midwest Environmental Protection 720 Law Building Associates t
Lansing, Michigan 40913 RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza James R. Kates l
Chicago, Illinois 60611 203 S. Washington Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48605 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Jeann Linsley Midland, Michigan 48640 Bay City Times 311 Fifth Street Bay City, Michigan 48706
Paul C. Rau Midland Daily News 124 Mcdonald Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licer. sing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- V
[
6 William D. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff
_.