|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20063N7471982-10-0606 October 1982 Motion for Termination of Proceedings.Util Decided to Cancel Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063N7591982-10-0606 October 1982 Withdrawal of Application for CP ML20055A7221982-07-15015 July 1982 Memorandum & Order Denying Jf Doherty 820615 Submittals, Treated as Motion to Reconsider ASLB 820602 Order.Motion Untimely Filed & Failed to Show Significance or Gravity of Issues ML20055A3551982-07-12012 July 1982 Amended Contention 59.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L4521982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Fails to Establish Timeliness &/Or Significance of Issues Sought to Be Raised.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5531982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Should Be Considered Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 820602 Order.Timeliness & Significance of Issues Not Established.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054J9371982-06-28028 June 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Request to Reopen Record. Request Improper & Insufficient to Support Relief.Commission Rules Cannot Be Circumvented by Refiling Same Argument After ASLB Ruling Issued.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054F9861982-06-15015 June 1982 Motion to Reopen Record to Take Evidence on Contention 59. Gravity of Issues Warrants Reopening ML20054G0171982-06-15015 June 1982 Contention 50 Re Brown & Root Deficiencies in Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20053D0861982-05-24024 May 1982 Response in Opposition to Util 820519 Motion to Strike Doherty Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations.Contention Should Be Treated as Such,Not as Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20052H8621982-05-19019 May 1982 Motion to Strike J Doherty Reply to Applicant 820507 Response to Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58. Commission Rules Do Not Allow Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052H4441982-05-14014 May 1982 Reply Opposing Applicant 820507 Response to J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58.Contention Should Be Admitted W/Amends.Aslb Should Judge Conduct of Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052F3121982-05-0707 May 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention Re Alleged Failure to Rept Design Defects.Substantively, Motion Is Motion to Reopen Record & Stds Have Not Been Met. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052D1221982-04-29029 April 1982 Findings of Fact on Supplemental Issues to Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Technical Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052A4541982-04-22022 April 1982 Submittal of Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations at Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054E0561982-04-21021 April 1982 Supplemental Findings of Fact on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Technical Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050J1111982-04-0606 April 1982 Answers to Second & Third Sets of Interrogatories,Questions 29 & 8 Respectively,Re Quadrex Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20050E2961982-04-0505 April 1982 Answers & Objections to Seventh Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050E2891982-04-0505 April 1982 Answers & Objections to Doherty Sixth Set of Interrogatories.Related Correspondence ML20050C4211982-04-0202 April 1982 Objections to Request for Admissions.Requests Untimely, Irrelevant to Issues Before ASLB & Extremely & Unduly Burdensome.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050C4081982-03-31031 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Fifth Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050C4791982-03-29029 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Jf Doherty Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20042C6181982-03-29029 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820315 Motion for ASLB to Subpoena Quadrex Corp Employee Witnesses as ASLB Witnesses. Request Is Based on Misperception of Scope of Reopened Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6431982-03-29029 March 1982 Motion for ASLB to Call DE Sells as Witness for Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Testimony Needed to Explain Why NRC Did Not Immediately Obtain Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050C5091982-03-26026 March 1982 Response to Jf Doherty 20th & 21st Requests for Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050C5041982-03-26026 March 1982 Testimony of Lj Sas on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Quadrex Rept.Rept Raises No Issue as to Whether Ebasco Can Properly Engineer Project.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20050C5011982-03-26026 March 1982 Supplemental Testimony of Jh Goldberg on Technical Qualifications.Brown & Root Terminates Due to Lack of Engineering Productivity,Not Due to Allegations in Quadrex Rept ML20042C5201982-03-25025 March 1982 Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant & to Postpone Evidentiary Presentations at 820412 Hearings.Applicant Objections to Interrogatories Unsupported & Necessitate Hearings Be Delayed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0671982-03-25025 March 1982 Reply to Tx Pirg 820315 Addl Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0801982-03-25025 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C5481982-03-23023 March 1982 Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions Re Quadrex Rept & Tx Pirg Contention 31.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0841982-03-23023 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Third Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0941982-03-23023 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042A4791982-03-17017 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820310 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearings.Sufficient Grounds Not Provided to Justify Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042B2351982-03-17017 March 1982 Seventh Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042B2381982-03-15015 March 1982 Sixth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20042B2451982-03-15015 March 1982 Motion for Subpoena of Quadrex Corp Employees.Testimony Necessary for Clear Understanding of Brown & Root Deficiencies Despite Util Supervision & Specific Steps Needed to Correct & Prevent Problems.W/Certificate of Svc ML20041F0761982-03-10010 March 1982 Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041F0871982-03-10010 March 1982 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearing on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Addl Time Needed to Complete Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049J6571982-03-0808 March 1982 Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1001982-03-0505 March 1982 First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1071982-03-0505 March 1982 First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents Re Tx Pirg Contention 31.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1181982-03-0505 March 1982 Third Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Related Correspondence ML20041E1201982-03-0505 March 1982 Motion for Order Directing Applicant to Provide Forthcoming Bechtel Quadrex Rept Review.Rept Pertinent to Remaining Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041E1741982-03-0505 March 1982 Brief Opposing R Alexander Appeal from ASLB 820112 Order Denying Petition to Intervene.Aslb Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E0711982-03-0404 March 1982 Second Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 21 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20049H8881982-03-0101 March 1982 Response Opposing D Marrack 820213 Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings & Continuance.No Commission Regulations or Atomic Energy Act Provisions Require Applicant Irrevocable Commitment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5381982-02-22022 February 1982 Reply to Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041C0671982-02-22022 February 1982 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 820209 Motion for Addl Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.Motion Mooted by Tx Pirg Filing Proposed Findings on 820212. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5421982-02-17017 February 1982 First Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence 1982-07-02
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20063N7471982-10-0606 October 1982 Motion for Termination of Proceedings.Util Decided to Cancel Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L4521982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Fails to Establish Timeliness &/Or Significance of Issues Sought to Be Raised.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5531982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Should Be Considered Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 820602 Order.Timeliness & Significance of Issues Not Established.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054J9371982-06-28028 June 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Request to Reopen Record. Request Improper & Insufficient to Support Relief.Commission Rules Cannot Be Circumvented by Refiling Same Argument After ASLB Ruling Issued.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054F9861982-06-15015 June 1982 Motion to Reopen Record to Take Evidence on Contention 59. Gravity of Issues Warrants Reopening ML20053D0861982-05-24024 May 1982 Response in Opposition to Util 820519 Motion to Strike Doherty Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations.Contention Should Be Treated as Such,Not as Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20052H8621982-05-19019 May 1982 Motion to Strike J Doherty Reply to Applicant 820507 Response to Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58. Commission Rules Do Not Allow Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052H4441982-05-14014 May 1982 Reply Opposing Applicant 820507 Response to J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58.Contention Should Be Admitted W/Amends.Aslb Should Judge Conduct of Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052F3121982-05-0707 May 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention Re Alleged Failure to Rept Design Defects.Substantively, Motion Is Motion to Reopen Record & Stds Have Not Been Met. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6181982-03-29029 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820315 Motion for ASLB to Subpoena Quadrex Corp Employee Witnesses as ASLB Witnesses. Request Is Based on Misperception of Scope of Reopened Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6431982-03-29029 March 1982 Motion for ASLB to Call DE Sells as Witness for Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Testimony Needed to Explain Why NRC Did Not Immediately Obtain Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C5201982-03-25025 March 1982 Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant & to Postpone Evidentiary Presentations at 820412 Hearings.Applicant Objections to Interrogatories Unsupported & Necessitate Hearings Be Delayed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042A4791982-03-17017 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820310 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearings.Sufficient Grounds Not Provided to Justify Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041F0871982-03-10010 March 1982 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearing on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Addl Time Needed to Complete Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1201982-03-0505 March 1982 Motion for Order Directing Applicant to Provide Forthcoming Bechtel Quadrex Rept Review.Rept Pertinent to Remaining Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041E1741982-03-0505 March 1982 Brief Opposing R Alexander Appeal from ASLB 820112 Order Denying Petition to Intervene.Aslb Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049H8881982-03-0101 March 1982 Response Opposing D Marrack 820213 Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings & Continuance.No Commission Regulations or Atomic Energy Act Provisions Require Applicant Irrevocable Commitment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041C0671982-02-22022 February 1982 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 820209 Motion for Addl Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.Motion Mooted by Tx Pirg Filing Proposed Findings on 820212. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5901982-02-13013 February 1982 Motion for Postponement of All Action on CP Application Until Applicant States That Util Irrevocably Committed to Building Plant If CP Received.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20040H0761982-02-0909 February 1982 Motion for 30 Addl Days to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Length of Record Necessitates Extension. Decision Would Not Be Delayed Since Addl Hearings to Be Held in Apr 1982 ML20040E2781982-01-29029 January 1982 Requests for Clarification Re R Alexander 811130 Petition to Intervene.J Silberg 820122 Ltr Indicates That Order Denying Petition Issued,But No Order Has Been Served.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20039B7481981-12-17017 December 1981 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 811207 Motions for Addl Testimony, Further Development of Record & Admission of New Contention. Motion Superficial Attempt to Delay Proceeding & Totally Devoid of Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M6441981-12-14014 December 1981 Response Opposing Doherty 811015 Renewed Motion for Addl Evidence on Tx Pirg Contention 31.Doherty Failed to Comply W/Aslb 811110 Order.Motion Is W/O Merit & Would Cause Unnecessary Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M6241981-12-0707 December 1981 Motion for Tx Pirg to Present Addl Evidence,To Order Applicant to Serve Tx Pirg W/Quadrex Rept & to Rule That Need for Power Is Tx Pirg Contention.Alternatively,Requests Admittance as Tx Pirg Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20039B0771981-12-0707 December 1981 Renewed Motion for Addl Evidence on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Applicant Technical Qualifications.Specifies Portions of Quadrex Rept,Indicating Organizational Changes That Should Be Made.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20038A8841981-11-20020 November 1981 Response Opposing Doherty 811106 Motion for Addl Testimony on Need for Power.Pleading Construed as Motion to Reopen Record.Burden of Explaining Why ASLB Would Reach Different Result Not Met.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20010F4791981-09-0303 September 1981 Response Opposing Further Consideration of Radon Releases. NRC Analysis of Radon Releases in Final Suppl to Fes Satisfies NEPA Requirements,Complies W/Commission 780414 Order & Supplies Sufficient Info.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010G1101981-09-0303 September 1981 Response to ASLB Request Re Positions on ALAB-640.Radon Emissions Determined by ALAB-640 Constitute Significant Addl Environ Impact.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010A1171981-08-0505 August 1981 Motion to Strike Marrack Prefiled Testimony.Testimony Is Not Specifically Responsive to F Sanders 810205-06 Testimony. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20009B2031981-07-0707 July 1981 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Doherty 810622 Request for Leave to File Contention 57.No Good Cause Shown for Late Filing & No Specificity Provided.W/Science News Article & Certificate of Svc ML20005B3801981-06-22022 June 1981 Request for Leave to File & Submission of Contention 57 Re Vulnerability of Control Sys to Electromagnetic Pulses. Issue Has Not Been Made Public Until Recently.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347F4941981-05-0808 May 1981 Reply Opposing Doherty 810423 Filing Re Contention 56, If Filing Is Motion to Add Late Filed Contention. Contention Refs Alleged Problem at Browns Ferry Which Is Not Applicable to Mark III Containments.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347F4661981-05-0808 May 1981 Response Opposing Doherty 810423 Motion to Reopen Record on Need for Power Contention.Aslb Should Issue Order That Motion Is Moot & Direct Applicant to Update Testimony on Need for Power Testimony Later.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003H9551981-04-29029 April 1981 Motion for Order Adopting Specific Procedures to Govern Conduct of cross-examination During Health & Safety Phase of Proceeding.Procedures Will Ensure cross-examination Not Cumulative.W/Proposed Order & Certificate of Svc ML19343D3891981-04-27027 April 1981 Motion to Strike I Bross 810331 Affidavit.Affidavit Does Not Respond to Ld Hamilton Supplemental Affidavits But Constitutes Personal Attack of Affiant.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20126J9451981-04-24024 April 1981 Motion Opposing Applicant 810422 Motion to Preclude Jm Scott Testimony.Tx Pirg & Intervenor Doherty Are Separate Parties ML20003H7981981-04-22022 April 1981 Motion for Addl Testimony & cross-examination on Conservation Techniques,Interconnection & Effects of Const Delay.Proceedings Have Not Addressed These Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003H7471981-04-22022 April 1981 Motion to Preclude Jm Scott Testimony.Intent of ASLB 810407 Order Was to Preclude Scott from Having Dual Role of Atty & Witness for Any Other Party.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20126H9601981-04-0707 April 1981 Request for Order Directing Util to Reissue 810331 Pleading W/Correct Title.Defective Title Did Not Put All Parties on Notice ML20126H9641981-04-0707 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Util & NRC 810330 Motions to Disqualify Tx Pirg Counsel,Jm Scott.Counsel Will Appear as Expert Witness.Public Interest Requires Counsel Presence. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9721981-03-31031 March 1981 Response to NRC & Applicant Responses to J Doherty 810222 Motion for Reconsideration of Admission of Contention 21. Filing of Motion Was Timely Under Circumstances. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G4941981-03-30030 March 1981 Brief,In Form of Pleading,Addressing Need to Disqualify Tx Pirg Counsel Per Disciplinary Rules 5-101 & 5-102.Having Chosen to Appear as Witness,Scott Should Be Barred from Participation as Atty.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G5831981-03-24024 March 1981 Response for Order Allowing Intervenors to File Id Bross Supplemental Affidavit to Respond to Ld Hamilton Affidavit on Behalf of Util.One Day Delay Should Be Excused Due to Intervenor Attempt to Comply W/Rules.W/Certificate of Svc ML20003D2161981-03-0404 March 1981 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 810217 Motions on Procedural Matters,Referral of Interlocutory Appeal,Certification of Various Issues & Removal of Aslb.Motion Contains Misrepresentations of Alab Rulings.W/Certificate of Svc ML19341D4801981-02-25025 February 1981 Response to Intervenor Doherty Third Supplemental Response to Motion for Summary Disposition.Intervenor Has No Right to File Late Responses,Shows No Good Cause & Info Has No Relationship to Affected Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20003C3161981-02-17017 February 1981 Requests to ASLB for Interlocutory Appeal & Certification of Questions & to ASLAP for Direct Certification of Question Re Ability of Intervenors to cross-examine Witnesses. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003B0771981-02-0505 February 1981 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Jf Doherty Contention 55.Contention Does Not Address 10CFR2.714 Requirements & No Good Cause Established for Late Filing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345E8521981-01-30030 January 1981 Suppl to 810129 Motion Requesting Reversal of 810123 Ruling Denying Intervenor Rentfro cross-examination Opportunity.Evidence Supporting Intervenor Discernible Interest in Issues Outlined.W/Certificate of Svc ML19345E5721981-01-29029 January 1981 Requests ASLB Reconsider Ruling Restricting cross-examination,for Interlocutory Appeal & Certification of Questions.Also Moves Aslab for Directed Certification of Questions & Appointment of New Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc ML19341B6021981-01-29029 January 1981 Response Opposing Intervenor Doherty 810123 Motion to Change Cross Examination Procedures.Repetitious cross- Examination Would Be Avoided If All Intervenors Attended All Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl 1982-07-02
[Table view] |
Text
-
s C7/02/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l1UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD /b l '/y hl\h V drg In the Matter of )
$)
-g
.[M t \
q , y , '-l pp HOUST0tl LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466 g @76 [;h y (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating x Q Station, Unit 1) ) 6Q\
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S MOTION TO RE0PEi1 THE RECORD TO ADD C0!iTENTION 59 I. IllTRODUCTION On June 15, 1982, Intervenor Doherty filed a motion with the Licensing Board requesting that the Allens Creek record be reopened to hear evidence on Contention 59.E The subject matter of this particular contention is not new to this proceeding. It was formerly raised by Intervenor Doherty in a motion dated April 22, 1982., seeking admission of Contention 58 related to the Applicant's alleged failure to report deficiencies pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(e) found by the Quadrex Corporation in its review of and report on design and engineering work by the Brown & Root Company at the South Tqxas Nuclear Project (STP).
-1/ The motion consists of two documents - "Intervenor Doherty'.s Motion to Reopen the Record," and "Intervenor Doherty's Contention 59." These documents are considered together as a motion to reopen the record for purposes of this response.
8207080234 820702
{DRADOCK05000;n ^])303
On May 7 and May 12, 1982, the Applicant and the NRC Staff respectively filedresponsesinoppositiontotheApril22ndmotion.S/ Mr. Doherty filed a reply to Applicant's response to his motion on May 14, 1982, wherein he specified what deficiencies he felt should have been reported under10C.F.R.550.55(e)(1)(i-iv).2/ Thereafter, Applicant filed a motion to strike the Doherty reply on May 19th. This was followed by a Doherty reply to the motion to strike on May 24th.
By a Memorandum and Order dated June 2, 1982, the Licensing Board denied the Doherty motion to add Contention 58 and granted Applicant's motion to strike the Doherty reply of May 14th Since the record in this proceeding was formally closed on April 14, 1982 (Tr. 22020), the Board treated the Doherty request to add Contention 58 as a motion to reopen the record. Memorandum and Order, p. 3.S/ The Board discussed the timeliness of the motion to reopen the record and the significance or gravity of the issues presented pursuant to the guidance provided in .
I I
l
~2/ See " Applicant's Response to Intervenor Doherty Motion to Add Contention 58", dated May 7, 1982; "NRC Staff Response In Opposition to Intervenor Doherty's Motion to Add Contention 58,"
dated May 12, 1982.
I.
-3/ As discussed later, the substance of this reply is virtually identical to the substance of the instant motion regarding Contention 59.
~~4/ Both' Applicant and Staff argued that in a situation where an intervenor seeks to litigate a new contentirn after the record is closed, the standards to reopen a record a- ontrolling as opposed to the standards to add an untimely conten. a which are set forth f .1 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1). Applicant Response, p. 8; Staff Response, pp. 10-11. The Board agreed.
-- -- - , ,+
-,---w ,,
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523, recon. den.,ALAB-141,6AEC576(1973).
The Board determined that the motion was untimely in that the STP Quadrex i
Report perceived deficiencies could_have been raised in prior Doherty motions of October 15, 1982, and December 7, 1981, on this subject matter, and that Intervenor Doherty did not sustain his burden of I
showing that the motion to reopen raised matters which were of major significance to plant safety. Memorandum and Order, p. 4. Its determination that Mr. Doherty had not met his burden of showing a significant safety issue was based, in part, on the fact that the April 22nd motion "neither addresses the balance of [10 C.F.R.
5 55(e)(1)] that requires that the deficiency must also meet one of the four listed conditions, nor explains which of the Quadrex findings should have been reported because they could have an adverse effect of the safety of operations and met one of the four conditions." .
Memorandum and Order, pp. 4-5.
The Board also rejected that part of proposed Contention 58 which I
concerned the timing of th> disclosure of the STP Quadrex Report. It noted that it had previously ruled that this subject matter was only marginallv relevant to the issue of techni' cal qualifications but, in any event, allowed some cross-examination on this matter and invited Mr. Doherty to offer any documents to substantiate his claim of deliberate non-disclosure. The Board concluded that Mr. Doherty's April 22nd motion presented no new arguments or documentation that would warrant reopening the record. Id_, p. 6.
k l
L
5 fir. Doherty has recognized and, in fact, admitted the defects in his April 22nd motion. See June 15th motion, p. 3: "It should be pointed out the April 22, 1932 filing of Contention 58, was defective
.... He first attempted to cure _the defects contained in his initial motion in his reply of April 24, 1982, whichwasstruckbytheBoard.EI That being so, he has resubmitted that reply in the form of a new motion to reopen the record to add Contention 59. Accordingly, in Staff's mind, Intervenor Doherty's June 15, 1982, motion to reopen should technically be considered a motion for reconsideration of the Board's June 2, 1982 Order. In any event, whether the instant motion is considered a motion for reconsideration or a new motion to reopen the
~5/ Mr. Doherty also appears to argue that he was entitled as a matter.
of right to reply to the Applicant and/or Staff responses to his initial motion to add Contention 58. He cites Houston Lighting.and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
KL'AUTEEE,10 NRC 521 (1979) for the proposition that an intervenor is entitled to reply to objections to contentions. Thus, Mr. Doherty - :
may be implicitly arguing that the Board's action in striking his
,, April 24th reply was erroneous. However, this ar'gument ignores the fact that Allens Creek, supra, is limited to a right of reply to timely-raised contentions in a petition to intervene. As stated in XTlens Creek:
i
[S]ubstantive alterations of contentions, as distin-quished from arguments in support of existing contentions, can be done only wi'th leave of the Board; that is a matter within its discretion."
ALA3-565, 11 NRC 521 at 523, n. 11. There is no right of reply in a situation where new contentions are raised in a motion to rdopen. In these situations, the express provisions of the Cornission's motion requirements, set forth in 10 C.F.R. % 2.7J govern. Accordingly, we submit that the Board's action in striking a Doherty reply was correct pursuant to 10 C.F.R. @ 2./30(c).
record makes no substantive difference in terms of the Staff's response.5/ Thus, we have evaluated the motion in terms of whether it has timely raised a significant new safety issue which merits reopening the record. As discussed below, we believe that the motion has failed to establish both the timeliness and the significance of the issues sought to be. raised. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
II. DISCUSSION The standards that are applicable to reopen a. record have been discussed in the Board's June 2,1982 Memorandum and Order and the NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Intervenor Doherty's Motion to Add Contention 58, dated May 12, 1982. Those discussions need not be repeated here except to note that the timeliness and the significance of the issues raised must be considered.
With respect to the timeliness of the issues raised, the Board in
- .its June 2,1982 Order indicated that the scope of the April 12-14, 1982
.. hearing pertaining to STP Quadrex Report matters was s'et by Intervenor g Doherty in his prior motions. The Board concluded that Mr. Doherty could have alleged that the Applicant failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 10 C.F.R. @ 50.55(e) in either his motion of
~6/ Procedurally, a distinction between the two motions might be significant. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.771, motions'for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after the final decision. Since Mr. Doherty's motion was filed within the prescribed time, this procedural difference has been mooted.
See also,10 C.F.R. 5 2.710.
L
October 15, 1981, or in his renewed motion of December 7,1981 and, hence, Mr. Doherty's April 22, 1982 niotion to reopen was untimely to raise these matters. Memorandum and Order, p. 4 Mr. Doherty's June 15, 1982 motion to reopen raises no new arguments pertaining to timeliness except an assertion that the Board's Order of November 10, 1981 (which denied without prejudice Intervenor Doherty's motion of October 15, 1981 on STP Quadrex Report issues), limited Mr. Doherty's scope of inquiry to organizational and supervisory changes that should be made at Allens Creek in light of the STP Quadrex Report. Accordingly, Mr. Doherty argues that he was " precluded" from r'.ising " problems with 10 C.F.R.
5 50.55(e) reporting . . .". Motion, pg. 2.
This argument has no merit. First, the Board's Order of November 10, 1981 did not preclude fir. Doherty from raising issues pertaining to the Applicant's inability to comply with the reporting requirements of 10 C.F.R.
Q50.55(e). No language is cited that would lead to that result. Certainly Mr. Doherty was free to . frame an issue consistent with that order concerning
~
the Applicant's organizational ability to review and report design and construction deficiencies in accordance with 10 C.F.R. s 50.55(e). Secondly, even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the Board's Order of November 10, 1981, did preclude Mr. Doherty from raising these matters as additional evidence on TexPirg Contention 31, it did not and could not preclude him frca raising this issue anew within a reasonable time after receipt of the STP Quadrex Report in November 1981. Recei; af new information may constitute " good cause" for an untimely contention under 10 C.F.R.
5 2.714(a)(1). See Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 148-59 (1979). Under these circumstances,
the Board determined in its Order of June 2,1982, that Mr. Doberty's April 22, 1982 submission of this issue was untimely. That matermination remains valid for the later June 15, 1982 submission by Mr. Doherty on the same issue. Accordingly, Mr. Doherty's motion to reopen is again untimely.
The sum and substance of Mr. Doherty's arguments in both his April 22 and June 15, 1982 motions concerning the safety significance of the STP Quadrex Report findings is that because the Quadrex Report uncovered what the Quadrex Corporation perceived to be numerous design and construction problems at STP, it follows that the Applicant either does not have the technical competence to analyze the findings and report applicable 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(e) violations or it " lacks character to be a Commission licensee" because of the willful concealment of design or construction problems. June 15th Motion, pg. 4-5.
In its June 2,1982 Memorandum and Order (pg. 4), the Board ruled .
on these matters. The Board concluded that these speculative assertions did not meet the burden of establishing which of the STP Quadrex Report findings should have been reported under 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e) because they could have an adverse effect on the safe operation of t! .t facility.
The present motion of June 15, 1982, does '-not attempt to cure this fundamental pleading deficiency. It merely listed certain findings and gave a brief paraphrased description of the subject matter of the' finding.
It did not allege how these findings represented either (1) a significant breab:x;n in the quality assurance program, or (2) a significant deficiency in final design, or (3) a significant deficiency in construction of or signficant damage to a structure, system, or component, or (4) a significant 1
o 8_
deviation from performance specifications. Absent the crucial nexus
' between the above-noted construction or design deficiencies and a signif-icant effect on the safe operation cf the facility, it ca not be established that these deficiencies should be reported under 10 C.F.R.
550.55(e). In addition, the motion fails to establish that the Applicant lacks the technical ability to analyze engineering reports or the integrity to comply with NRC reporting requirements. Accordingly, this motion again fails to establish the safety significance of the issues sought to be litigated in a reopened proceeding.
III. CONCLUSI2E For the reasons set forth above, this motion to reopen should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
. 1 ad[ , bl&lC Richard L. Black Counsel for URC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of July,1982.
i.
9
. p .
fN UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA f;UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO;1 4. '
s,/;<
T, w -
jlY ..d;.f %\6h BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A!!D LICEllSItiG BOARD NdO "-
'fk,$ff i h.
In the Matter of ) \.. dhIMDh((
HOUST0ft LIGHTIfiG A!iD POWER CLMPAflY ) Docket tio. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek fluclear Generating )
Station, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of fiRC STAFF RESP 0:lSE 111 OPPOSITIO!! TO IllTERVEf;0R DOHERTY'S MOTIO:1 TO RE0 pef 1 THE RECORD TO ADD CO:tTEtiTI0tt 59 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the followina by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the fluclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 2nd day of July,1982.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Susan Plettman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. riuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station -
Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX- 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Route 3, Box 350A City of Wallis, TX 77 L Uatkinsville, Georgia 30677 Hon. John R. Mikeska fir. Gustave A. Linenberger* Aust.in County Judge Administrative Judge P.'O. Box 310 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bellville, TX 77418 Board Panel U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John F. Doherty i Washington, DC 20555 l 4327 Alconbury Street
- J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. Houston, TX 77021 l Baker & Botts l One Shell Plaza l'r. William J. Schuessler l Houston, TX 77002 5310 Darnell Houston, TX 77074 i
l 1
8
l
- Jack Newman, Esq. D. Marrack
- Lowenstein, Reis, Newman & 420 Mulberry Lane Axelrad Bellaire, TX 77401 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A.11cCorkle c/o James Scott, Jr. , Esq.
6140 Darnell 13935 Ivymount Houston, TX 77074 Sugarland, TX 77478 Mr. Wayne Rentfro Rosemary N. Lemme:
P.O. Box 1335 11423 Oak Spring Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- Carro Hinderstein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:nmission Houston Bar Center Washington, DC 20555 723 Main Suite 500 Houston, TX 77002 tiargaret Bishop U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. Morgan Bishop Region IV, I&E 11418 Oak Spring 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77043 Arlington, TX 76011 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq. Bryan L. Baker Pollan, Nicholson & Doggett 1923 Hawthorne P.O. Box 592 Houston, TX 77098 Rosenberg, TX 77471 ,
Robin Griffith - -
Carolina Conn 1034 Sally-Ann
- 1414 Scenic Ridge Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77n43 Mr. William Perrenod Atomic Safety and Licensing 4070 Merrick Board Panel
- Houston, TX 77025 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 JW f R hardL.f/ack Co nsel for%iRC Staff
_.