ML20041F083

Answer Opposing Wi Environ Decade 820224 Motion to Reconsider ASLB 820219 Memorandum & Order,Part Iv.No Objection to Alternative Motion That Order Be Clarified. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041F083
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/10/1982
From:	Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8203160173
Download: ML20041F083 (6)

Text

A *

.- . c,.,--.

March 10, 1982 r'

'82 E'? 12 P100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266 e A

) 50-301 #

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (OL Amendnent) q Units 1 and 2) ) NEg N4g 50 LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO INTERVENOR'S 788g FEBRUARY 24, 1982 MOTION TO ,

RECONSIDER BOARD ORDER  %

s g

+

By motion dated February 24, 1982, Intervenor asked the Board to reconsider Part IV of its Memorandum and Order dated February 19, 1982, which states that Decade must mee* the requirements of Section 2.714 (a) (1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. 52. 714 (a) (1) , for the filing of late contentions or, alternatively, that the order be clarified to 6'the understanding that Intervenor is allowed to raise conten-tions previously identified in response to Staff interrogatories without satisfying the good cause requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 (a) (1) for the late filing of contentions.

Lie:ensee objects to the motion for reconsideration.

Licensee has consistently maintained that even under the Board's directed summary disposition proceeding reiterated in Part I of the February 19, 1982 Memorandum and Order, Intervenor should be required to make the showings, including the showing of good (9 \

r203160173 B20310 i PDR ADOCK 05000266 O PDR

cause, required by sections 2.714 (a) (1) and (b) for filing late contentions. Moreover, considering Intervenor's extensive involvement and familiarity with matters concerning steam gen-erator tube issues, there is no reason for Intervenor to be granted special exemption from the specific and clearly stated requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice. -

In any event, holding Intervenor to this requirement of the Commission's regulations would in no way prejudice it.

Intervenor has been under a continuing duty, by virtue of the interrogatories propounded by both the Staff and Licensee, to keep the parties currently informed of new issues-Intervenor wishes to raise. Thus, Intervenor cannot claim that it should be excused from Commission regulations for-issues it has not identified as of February 19, 1982, the date of the subject 1/

l Board Memorandum and Order!-

i s-i l 1/ One of the grounds relied on by Intervenor is that the l Board, early in this proceeding, " established expedited

, procedures that required the proceeding to advance prior I to the time normally allotted for intervenors to' file con-tentions." This is incorrect. Intervenor's contentions were included in its petition for leave to intervene. The expedited procedure allowed Intervenor (but not Licensee) l to commence discovery prior to the time that its contentions were ruled upon by-the Board. Intervenor was thereafter l

al' owed to conduct full discovery prior to submitting additional contentions. Because the Commission's Rules of Practice allow discovery only on the matters in con-troversy which have been admitte1 for litigation, 10 C.F.R.

52. 74 0 (b) (1) , this constituted a significant concession to Intervenor.

1

e Alternatively, Intervenor has moved the Board to clarify its order to mean that Intervenor is not required to

).

st3w good cause or otherwise comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S2. 714 (a) (1) for raising the issues which were iden-tified in its January 18, 1982 response to the Staff's interroga-tories. Licensee understands Part IV of the Board's February 19 Memorandum and Order to mean that Intervenor may raise, in the ,

i future, issues that have already .been ',' submitted on the record."

The only issues that have not yet been raised, but have been

" submitted on the record," are contained in Intervenor's January 18, 1982 letter to the Staff. Thus, Licensee does not object

' to the clarification of the Board's order sought by Intervenor 2/ -

in its alternative motion!-

Licensee would emphasize, however, that Intervenor's January 18, 1982 letter does not in and of itself constitute a raising of those issues for consideration in this proceeding.

PThat letter was addressed to the Staff, not the Board, and was l

i no more than a response to interrogatories. It in no way can be construed as a request or motion by Intervenor to have the

-Board admit those issues for litigation in this proceeding.

l Many of those issues,would have to be rejected out of hand by l

l I

! --2/ Licensee's understanding of the Board's order should not l be interpreted as agreement with a position that late-filed contentions need not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

52. 714 (a) (1) and (b).

n=

i l

the Board should Intervenor attempt to raise them, and could not, by virtue of lack of basis, irrelevancy, and/or previous rulings of the Board, cross the threshhold which would enable them even to become the subject of a summary disposition pro-3/

cedureT- As stated in Licensee's December 14, 1981 letter to the Board, if and when Intervenor attempts to raise such issues, Licensee will exercise its right to respond to them.

In view of the foregoing Licensee respectfully submits that Intervenor's motion for reconsideration of Part IV of the Board's February 19, 1982 Memorandum and Order should be denied.

Licensee does not object to Intervenor's motion in the alterna-tive for clarification of the Board's Memorandum and Order.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, PO TS & TROWBRIDGE By f0D A  ?

B'ruce W" Churchill, P.C'.

Delissa A. Ridgway Counsel for Licensee 6- 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Dated: March 10, 1982 (202) 822-1000

_3/ For example, Issues 1 and 2 are identical to Contentions 1 and 2 in Intervenor's July 20, 1981 petition. Those con-tentions were disposed of by the Board in its October 13, 1981 Memorandum and Order Concerning the Admission of a Party and Its~ Contentions at page 7. Issue 6 is identical to Intervenor's original Contention 6, which was denied by the Board at page 6 of its October 13, 1981 Memorandum and Order. Intervenor's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's ruling on that contention was also denied by the Board, Tr. 733-34. Issue 8 was rejected by the Board in its November 5, 1981 Memorandum and Order at 12, 21-22.

Issue 9 was raised by Intervenor and denied by the Board at the October 29-30, 1981 hearing, Tr! 558-68, 598; November 3, 1981. Memorandum and Order, at 12. Issues 11 and 12 are totally unrelated to the sleeving of steam generator tubes.

j

J ,

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266

) 50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (OL Amendment)

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Answer to Intervenor's February 24, 1982 Motion to Reconsider Board Order" was served this 10th day of March, 1982 by' deposit in 4

the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid to those on the attached Service List. .

T N

p

-. J v (

[

-Bruce' W. Churchfll, P. C.

l Dated: March 10, 1982 l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266

) 50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (OL Amendment)

Units 1 and 2) ) .

SERVICE LIST .

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Panel Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

1229 - 41st Street Office of the Executive >

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry K. Kline Wasington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Kathleen M. Falk, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wisconsin's Environmental Decade Washington, D.C. 20555 114 North Carroll Street Suite 208 Atomic Safety and Licensing Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Paard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Francis X. Davis, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Monroeville N2 clear Center Westinghouse Electric Corporation Atomic Safety and Licensing P. O. Box 355 Appeal Board Panel Pittsburgh, PA 15230 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

John R. Kenrick, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott Office of the Secretary Forty-Second Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 600 Grant Street Washir.gton , D.C. 20555 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 I

s

__