ML20055A722

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

ML20055A722
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/15/1982
From:	Cheatum E, Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8207190372
Download: ML20055A722 (4)

Text

~

/"

9 00LMETED ususc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T2 J!L 16 N0:31 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD r-rer er "cPETAnY 8efore Administrative Judge}:d!6GlEsvn,i Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman aaANCH Dr. E. Leonard Cheatun Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. S RVED JUL161987-

)

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466-CP

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating ) July 15,1982 Station, Unit 1) )

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying The Doherty Submission (s) of June 15,1982)

MEMORANDUM On June 15, 1982, Intervenor John Doherty filed a Motion To Reopen The Record in order to consider his proposed Contention 59.

On that date, he also filed a document captioned "Intervenor Doherty's Contention 59".-/ Applicant's and the Staff's responses in oppo-sition were filed respectively on June 28 and July 2,1982.

Our Memorandum and Order of June 2,1982, denied an earlier Doherty motion of April 22nd which had requested in part that the

-*/ Since the motion cites as support the document captioned "Intervenor Doherty's Contention 59," apparently it was intended that both filings should be considered together as a motion to reopen the record.

8207190372 820715 PDR ADOCK 05000466 0 PDR D SO2.

./

F record be reopened to consider his Contention 58A, the thrust of which was substantially similar, if not identical, to the currently proposed

' Contention 59A. Recognizing that his April 22, 1982 filing was defec-tive, he now seeks to remedy those defects. Accordingly, we treat the instant motion to reopen the record, insofar as Contention 59A is concerned, as being a motion for reconsideration of our June 2,1982 Order.

Regardless of the caption given to Mr. Doherty's instant motion, it is clear that this motion (re: Contention 59A), like his original motion of April 22nd re: Contention 58A, was untimely filed and failed to show the significance or gravity of the issues. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523, reconsider. den., ALAB-141, 6 AEC -

576 (1973). While he argues that the Order of November 10, 1981, pre-cluded mentioning of Applicant's failure or inability to review and report design and construction deficiencies as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e), we do not see any such preclusive wording, and, even assuming there was such wording, said Order did not and could not preclude him from raising this issue within a reasonable time after i

Applicant had furnished him with a copy of the STP Quadrex Report in November 1981, pursuant to the Order of November 10th. Further, once

I again Mr. Doherty has failed to sustain his burden of showing that findings in the Quadrex Report should have been reported because they concerned deficiences which could have had an adverse effect on the safety of operations and met one of the four conditions in 50.55(e).

While he summarily describes certain findings in the Quadrex Report, he does not tell us why these findings relate to deficiencies which fall within the reporting requirements of 50.55(e)(1)(i)-(iv).

Indeed at page 4 of his April 22nd submission, Mr. Doherty had previ-ously admitted that he did not know as a fact that the Quadrex report reflected " problems which would have resulted in an adverse effect on safe operations of the STNP," and had barrenly concluded that, because Applicant had found so little reportable material amongst the many findings in the Quadrex Report, it follows that Applicant's competence to comply with 50.55(e) is called into question.

Finally, with respect to Contention 598 (formerly Contention 588), Mr. Doherty improperly reargues his motion for reconsideration of the Board's ruling with respect to the marginal relevancy of the timing '

of the disclosure of the Quadrex Report. At pages 5 and 6 of our Memorandum and Order of June 2,1982, we had denied his motion for reconsideration. We will not permit this improper reargument.

l

(A .

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons, it is this 15th day of July, 1982 ORDERED That the Doherty submission (s) of June 15, 1982, which we treat as being a motion to reconsider the Board's Order of June 2, 1982 and to reconsider once again a Board ruling, is denied.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C A- A 'I E' Leonard 7eatum ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

'A ave M. Linenbergdr, Jr.

ADM NISTRATIVE JUDGE

~ -. . ,

,dit.L4 'i li Ou Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE