ML20077C924
| ML20077C924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1983 |
| From: | Whicher J DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, WHICHER, J.M. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307260288 | |
| Download: ML20077C924 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _
g.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO 41 D
BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICEN.
BOARD (?*
h{f
$(-
'h 2
"In the Matter.of
)
,' 8
)
tfQ
,$~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ~
)
Docket-No L54 A -
s
)
' '\\ 50 55 (Byron Station.,fUnits 1 and 2)
)
' (' / &.., ?
~INTERVENORS' RES'PONSE'TO.
STAFF APPLICATION FOR STAY Purusant to the, Board's1 July 13, 1983_ Memorandum and Order, Intervenors the League and DAARE/ SAFE hereby respond to the Staff's July.11 application for a stay of the effectiveness of the June 21 and July 1 Orders.
As approved by the Board in the July 13 Memorandun and Order, Intervenors incorporate by reference the entirety of their brief before the Appeal Board.?/
Below, Intervenors summarine the arguments made in that brief and respond to the Staff's argumente in t' heir application for a stay.
A.
Likelihood of success on the merits.
As Intervenors show in their Appeal Board brief (see es-pecially pp. 11-13) there is no justification in this instance for withholding the requested testinony and evidence, for the policy considerations which may work to protect such evidence in other circumstances are simply absent here.
The Staff raised the Il Copies were served on this Board and the Staff by Federal Express, and on Edison by messenger, on July 19
)
i
,-J 1
3 8307260288 830721 PDR ADOCK 05000454 s
G PDR
mottor of the targot (Hatfield) and ' the scopo (records, QC in-spector qualification and' certification, hardware design and drawing ~ control, corrective action, housekeeping, and inspector
'i6 dependence) of the allegations, therefore of its l'nspection and investigation,.in its prefiled. testimony made public'in February.
ht.
Those matters werer explicated / pril: and May by' Mr. flughes'I/
A written ' statement, deposition by Commonwealth Edison, and deposi-
' tion before the Board.
Therefore, any potential to compromise the investi'ation and inspection occurred long ago.
g The -Staff's secondL argument, of disruptingla l'ongstanding
~
Staff practice: (Staff Application at' p.5-6), is simply no ' reason.
to withhold evidence in this circumstance.
Indeed,.the. duty placed upon it in Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear.
Station, Units 1 and 2), I. CAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625 (1973) shows i
that the contrary is the case: it must make disclosure.
Accor-dingly the Staf f hns not shown the likdihoo'd of success in th'e merits required for a stay.
B.
Irreparable Injury In arguing this point.in tneir stay application, the Staff has been no more illuminating than it was in justifying'its refusal before the Board.
A showing of irreparable injury ought to be strong and convincing, not predicated on conclusary allega-tiens or mere surmise.
I/ To the extent concerns of informant confidentiality with respect to Mr. Hughes are at work here, they are completely irrelevant, for the privilege belongs to the informant, not Staff.
The Staff cannot control what Mr. Hughes chooses to state publicly.
)
2 c
(
{
.v *.
As fully explained in' Intervenors' appellate brief, and as summarized above, any " injury" to the Staff's investigatory pro-cesses has already occurred.
Thus, not only will there be no potential for " irreparable". injury, there' will be no injury at
~
all caused Lby -the Staff's compliance with the Board's June 21 and July 1 orders.
C..
Harm to other parties.
The harm involved here is the potentia].to _ prejudice Inter-venors' case.
The QA/QC portion of this proceeding has already been segmented due to the fortuitous timing of Mr. Hughes' contact with the Intervenors.
The scheduled witnesses' concluded their. testimony on April 11, Mr. Hughes aopeared before the Board i
as ordered on May 29, and further testimony is scheduled for the week of August 9
.By further segmentation through scheduling yet another QA/QC evidentiary session, the: proceedings become even more unwieldy.:
~
.D. :The Public'Interes.t.
l The Staff raises two arguments with respect to.this fac' tor.
The.first relates to the potential to compromise the inspections and investigations.
Intervenors have shown that such potential does not exist.here.
The second argument is based on th'e Comm'ission's generic review of the confi'dentiality issue, as ordered in Texas 3
L t.
S Utillities Generating Co.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 ~ and. 2), CLI-83-18, HRC (1983).
Informant confiden-tiality is not an issue here, and the relevance of ;that' generic proceeding is difficult, at best, to imagine.'/'
eean In conclusion, Interve'nors submit that the ' Staff has not established the elements -necessary for 'a stay, and the applica-tion should accordingly be denied.
E Dated':
July 21, 1983 Respectfully submitted',
c4 &
g.
Jane M. Whicher '
Attorney for Intervenors i
the League and.DAARE/ SAFE on issues and matters relating Jane M Whicher to quality assurance / quality 109 N. Dearborn control Suite 1300 l}
Chicago, IL 60602
(
(312)641-5570 d -
t 1
+
t
_ _. _ ~ -
- d Iss Intervenors. pointed out in their appellate brief (p.13 n.*)
any-concern in this regard is easily obviated.,
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA iT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. [ g ~ j}'{N y
. /W p
's h?
- kis, k
.BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGJBOAR g
-9 il Mp L~.
a.,.
In the" Matter of
)
g
[0, 8
)
Y gO COMMONWEALTH EDISON, COMPANY!
)
Docket No. 50-A5 L 4 ? '
)
50-455; 4
(Byron Station,. Units 1 and 2)
)
~
o-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
^
I hereby certify this 21st day 'of July, 1983? that. copies of 3
"INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO STAFF ~ APPLICATION FOR STAY" and " REPLY i
IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENORS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT. QA/QC RECORD ON PREOPERATIONAL~ TESTING" in the above' captioned proceeding'were.
served on the following by. deposit.in the United-States mail, first class, or,>as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express, or by double asterisks, hand delivered.
}
- Ivan W.' Smith, Chairman
' Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
j Administrative. Judge' Office of Executive Legal Atomic Safety and' Licensing Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary of
'Dr. A. Dixon Callahan
.the Commission 7
i Administrative Judge Attn: ' Docketing & Service Union Carbide Corporation Section P.O. Box Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee-37830
. Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Dr. Richard F. Cole, Administrative Judge David Thomac, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 77 South Wacker Drive Board Chicago, IL 606P1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Isham Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
'# Alan P. Bielawski, Esq.
Room 325 Bruce Becker, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Isham Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL. 60603 C
4.W _
L JANE M. WHIC3ER M
o3
-