ML20041F526
| ML20041F526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203170084 | |
| Download: ML20041F526 (5) | |
Text
i 3/15/82 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 h
(Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
(Repair to Steam Generator Tubes)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVEN0R'S
't MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF pgCE g LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 19,1987)/
1 7
h;g@,Nh fb "##
~
,s I.
INTRODUCTION 4
On February 24, 1982, Intervenor Wisconsin's Environment
'Dycade 3
(Decade) filed " Decade's Motion to Reconsider Board's Memorandum an Order Concerning a Motion to Compel and Other Matters" (Motion).
In its Motion, Decade requested that the Licensing Board either (1) allow Decade to ennumerate contentions at the time of filing its motion concerning litigable issues without making a showing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1) for late-filed contentions, or (2) " clarify" the Board'sOrder1/ofFebruary 19, 1982 as to whether the Board's statement that Decade may raise as issues all matters submitted on the record includes the matters listed in Decade's letter to the Staff dated January 18, 1982.
1/
Memorandum and Order (Concerning a Motion to Compel and Other Matters) dated February 19, 1982.
(Order).
..,ggjt 3d#
~
/
. ;s -
a ttg
)
8203170084 82031" PDR ADOCK 0500026 C
PDh y
. For the reasons set forth below, the Staff supports Decade's Motion.
II. BA^EGROUND On October 13, 1982, the Licensing Board issued its " Memorandum and Order Concerning the Admission of a Party and its Contentions." The Board simplified the contentions then proposed by Decade into a single broad issue. This was done in order to accommodate the time constraints imposed by the immirent hearing on the Licensee's demonstration sleeving program. The hearing was held on October 29 and 20,1981. Subsequent to that hearing, there has been additional discovery among the parties concerning the Licensee's proposed full-scale sleeving program.
In response to Staff interrogatories filed on December 2,1981 and in accordance with the directions given by the Board during an on-the-record telephone conference held January 11, 1982, Decade sent a letter to the Staff dated January 18, 1982.
In this letter, Decade submitted "a self-contained list of our issues which we presently seek to litigate."
Decade's letter also purported to augment its answers to the Licensee's November 10, 1982 interrogatories. On February 2,1982, the Licensee filed its " Motion to Further Compel Decade's Responses to Interrogatories." The Board responded with its February 19, 1982 Order. Decade has now filed its February 24, 1982 Motion which addresses Part IV, "New Contentions", of the Board's Order.
I
. t III. DISCUSSION Decade's stated basis for its concern with the Board's Order is that "previously established procedures" did not require Decade to ennumerate its contentions. Motion at 3.
Now, Decade claims, the Board is impairing Decade's ability to raise new issues, contrary to those procedures.
In its Order, the Board stated that, due to the removal of time pressures, "it is no longer appropriate to admit new contentions freely, under the broad contention admitted by the Board." Order at 6.
The Board then ruled that Decade nay properly raise all matters submitted on the record of this proceeding; however, late contentions will be admitted only if they comply with the criteria of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1).
Order at 6-7.
Decade argues that the procedures adopted by the Board in its ruling during the January 11, 1982 telephone conference did not contemplate ennumeration of contentions until Decade filed its motion concerning litigable issues. This filing would follow completion of discovery.
The Staff agrees with Decade that the procedures as set forth in the Board's ruling (Tr. at 888-892) and the discussions between the parties and the Board preceding that ruling support Decade's position.
The Staff can find virtually nothing in the record thus far which compels Decade to set forth in final form those issues it intends to litigate prior to filing its motion concerning litigable issues. The one possible exception is Decade's continuing obligation to update answers to interrogatories (Tr. at 890; Order at 4-5), which, in the case of the Staff, requested all issues Decade intends to raise and the bases therefor.
Therefore, the Board's requirement that Decade comply with the criteria for the admission of late contentions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) for any new contentions, under the broad contention admitted by the Board, filed after February 19, 1982 is a change of the Board's procedures. This change in procedures was made without affording any of the parties an opportunity to comment on the change. The Staff agrees with Decade that it was entitled to rely on the procedures, including the stated deadlines, established by the Board in its ruling made during the January 11, 1982 telephone conference. For these reasons, the Staff sup-ports Decade's motion for reconsideration of Part IV of the Board's Order of February 19, 1982.
In the alternative, Decade seeks clarification of the Board's Order as to whether matters already submitted on the record include the matters listed in Decade's January 18, 1982 letter to the Staff. While the Staff believes the plain language of the Board's Order encompasses issues submitted on the record prior to February 19, 1982, including Decade's letter, the Staff has no objection to such a clarification.
l IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff supports Decade's Motion for reconsideration of Part IV of the Board's February 19, 1982 Memoran-dum and Order. The Staff does not object to Decade's Motion in the alter-native for clarification of the Board's Memorandum and Order.
Respectfully submitted, Richard G. Bachmann l
Counsel for NRC Staff l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of March, 1982 l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-266 1
50-301 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
)
(Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
(Repair to Steam Generator Tubes)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVEN0R'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LICENSING BOARD"S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 19, 1982" 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 Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of March, 1982:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
- Bruce Churchill, Esq.
Administrative Judge Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge Panel
- 1229 - 41st Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Panel (5)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section (1)*
Kathleen M. Falk Office of the Secretary Wisconsin's Environmental Decade U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 114 North Carroll Street Washington, D.C.
20555
- l Madison, WI 53703 Francis X. Davis, Esq.
P.O. Box 355 Pittsburg, PA 15230 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.
John R. Kenrick, Esq.
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott 42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff l
.