Similar Documents at Perry |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions ML20205D4901999-02-22022 February 1999 Transcript of 990222 Informal Public Hearing on 10CFR2.206 Petition in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-105.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20155F4561998-08-26026 August 1998 Demand for Info Re False Info Allegedly Provided by Wh Clark to Two NRC Licensees.Nrc Considering Whether Individual Should Be Prohibited from Working in NRC-licensed Activities for Period of 5 Yrs ML20236V5261998-07-20020 July 1998 Computer Access & Operating Agreement Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal1998-05-21021 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal ML20216B5111998-04-0909 April 1998 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty.Denies Request for Remission of Violation C,Ea 97-430 & Orders Licensee to Pay Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 within Next 30 Days PY-CEI-NRR-2269, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective ML20216G3821998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Duquesne Light Co & Allegheny Power Systems,Inc ML20217J0661998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Dqe, Inc & Allegheny Power System,Inc ML20198P9311997-11-0707 November 1997 Comments of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc.NRC Should Require Allegheny Power Sys,Inc to Affirm That Capco Antitrust License Conditions Will Be Followed ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20133B6941996-12-18018 December 1996 Submits Ordinance 850-96 Re Approval of Merger of Centerior & Oh Edison Into Firstenergy ML20135F4731996-12-0606 December 1996 Memorandum & Order CLI-96-13.* Commission Reverses & Vacates ASLB LBP-95-17 Which Granted Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Ocre & Hiatt.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961206 ML20132A8461996-12-0202 December 1996 Resolution 20-1996 Supporting Merger of Ohio Edison & Centerior Corp Under New Holding Company Called Firstenergy ML20134M6191996-10-28028 October 1996 Proclamation of Support by City of Sandusky,Oh Re Merger of Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corp ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20108B7571996-04-26026 April 1996 Licensee Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* Recommends That Commission Reverse Board Memorandum & Order Issued 951004.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List PY-CEI-NRR-2034, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl1996-03-11011 March 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20097B8911996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement or in Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures ML20096E2471996-01-0303 January 1996 Comment on PRM 50-64 Re Stockpiling Ki for Use as Thyroid Protectant in Event of Nuclear Accident.Supports Distribution of Ki to Public ML20094N1951995-11-17017 November 1995 Oh Edison Application for License Transfer in Connection W/ Sale & Related Transactions ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6341994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20064N9201994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition. W/Svc List ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1421993-10-19019 October 1993 Order.* Petitioners Shall File Supplemental Petition in Accordance W/Schedule in 931018 Order.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931020 ML20059B1761993-10-18018 October 1993 Order.* Informs That for Each Contention,Petitioners Shall Comply Fully W/Requirements of 10CFR2.714(b)(2)(i),(ii) & (III) & Their Filing Should Address Requirements Set Forth in Regulations.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20058M8761993-09-30030 September 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-21.* Appeal for Hearing Re Amend to Plant OL Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930930 ML20057C0461993-09-21021 September 1993 Supplemental Director'S Decision DD-93-15 Involving 920929 Request for Certain Actions to Be Taken Re Proposed Construction of Interim onsite,low-level Radioactive Waste Facility at Plant.Request Denied ML20056C8951993-07-19019 July 1993 Order Extending Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of LBP-92-32.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 930720 ML20045B5661993-06-0707 June 1993 Comment Re Proposed Generic Communication on Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans,As Published in Fr on 930401 (58FR17293).Believes Concept of Technical Review Not Addressed by STS ML20044E2781993-05-13013 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercise from Annual to Biennial ML20127A6171993-01-0606 January 1993 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of Board Order LBP-92-32,dtd 921118,extended Until 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930106 ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D4761992-12-22022 December 1992 Alabama Electric Cooperative Answer to Applicants Petitions for Review.* Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5871992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review ASLB 921118 decision,LBP-92-32.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underplanning of Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A5751992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review LBP-92-32, 921118 Board Decision in Proceeding.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underpinning of Statute.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A7651992-11-18018 November 1992 Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* City of Cleveland Petition for Review Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4671992-11-16016 November 1992 Licensee Response to Lake County Commissioners 10CFR2.206 Petition.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116E7941992-09-29029 September 1992 Petition for Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Const of Low Level Radwaste at Perry Plant.* Requests Public Hearing Be Held Prior to Const of Storage Site & Const Should Be Suspended Until NRC or Util Produces EIS on Risks ML20101N5131992-07-0808 July 1992 City of Cleveland Opposition to Applicant Request That Licensing Board Disregard Certain Arguments of City of Cleveland Counsel in Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20101N6401992-07-0707 July 1992 Reply by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Applicant Request That Board Disregard Factual Issues.* Applicant Requests Board Disregard Irrelevant Assertions by All Parties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101K2101992-06-29029 June 1992 Applicants Request That Licensing Board Disregard Factual Issues Discussed During Oral Argument.* Foregoing Issues Represent Factual Issues Which Board Should Disregard in Disposition of Phase One of Case.W/Certificate of Svc ML20098D5181992-05-26026 May 1992 Reply of City of Cleveland,Oh to Arguments of Applicants & NRC Staff W/Respect to Issues of Law of Case,Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel & Laches.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090F4261992-03-31031 March 1992 Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor,City of Cleveland,Oh & Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* City of Cleveland,Oh & Applicant Motions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094K3791992-03-18018 March 1992 Applicants Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule.* Applicants Request That Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J2891992-03-0909 March 1992 Response of DOJ to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges ASLB to Resolve Bedrock Legal Issue in Negative & Concludes That Commission Possess Legal Authority to Retain License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091N1241992-01-24024 January 1992 Applicants Answer to Cleveland Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Applicants Have No Objection to Request for Opportunity to Submit Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087E7821992-01-16016 January 1992 Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Cleveland Requests That Motion Be Granted & 911114 Order Establishing Schedule for Motions for Summary Disposition Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086U5371992-01-0606 January 1992 Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Board Grant Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Due to Lack of NRC Authority to Retain Antitrust License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J4821991-12-31031 December 1991 Reply Brief of City of Cleveland,Oh in Support of Notice of Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order Granting Request for Hearing.* Appeal Should Be Granted,Ref to Board Revoked & Applications Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9231991-12-27027 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply & Reply to Applicants Answer to City Motion for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3001991-12-24024 December 1991 Applicant Answer to Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision. * W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H7161991-12-19019 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N4601991-12-17017 December 1991 Licensees Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc & SL Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Determines That Intervenor Failed to Demonstrate Interest in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086J4741991-12-0909 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply Brief.* Motion to File Reply Should Be Granted for Listed Reasons ML20086G4001991-11-26026 November 1991 Ohio Edison Co Motion for Reconsideration.* Util Respectfully Requests That NRC Vacate CLI-91-15 & Direct Forthwith Answer to Licensee Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079Q0301991-11-0606 November 1991 Oec Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories.* Util Moves Board to Compel NRC to Respond Completely,Explicitly & Properly to Licensee Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B5841991-09-0606 September 1991 Licensee Answer to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Has Shown No Interest in Proceeding.W/Notice of Appearance,Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20076D1611991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc (AMP-Ohio) for Leave to Intervene.* Util Does Not Object to Admission of AMP-Ohio as Intervenor on Basis of Status as Beneficiary.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0481991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric & Toledo Edison to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio for Leave to Intervene.* Utils Believe That 910703 Petition Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081K8961991-06-20020 June 1991 Alabama Electric Cooperative Reply to Oppositions Filed to Petition to Intervene.* Informs of Util Intention to Assure Vindication of Proper Legal Principle.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2391991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio,To Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene.* ML20079D2211991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland, Oh to Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2161991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* AEC Has Not Met Burden of Satisfying Regulatory & Common Law Requirements.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-09
[Table view] |
Text
I
- l 4
00CMETED USNRC November 30,,g98dC -2 20 :58 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA <rnem-- .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) '
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No. 50-440 COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY ON ISSUES 6, 8, 14, and 15 By Motion of November 15, 1983,1 /Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE") asks the Licensing Board to " reopen discovery" for Issue Nos. 6, 8, 14 and 15, "and for any new issues which may be admitted (or old ones readmitted)."2 / The Motion seeks discovery that is " practically unlimited (as much as is consistent with the NRC's rules of practice) in scope and amount."-
3/
OCRE has identified no reasons which justify lifting the discovery cut-off dates previously imposed by the Licensing Board. The Motion is premature with respect.to issues not yet admitted to the proceeding. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.
1/
-- " Motion To Reopen Discovery on Issues 6, 8 14 and 15," dated November 15, 1983 (Motion). The Motion was served by mail on November 16, 1983.
2/
- Id. at 1.
3/
Id.. at 5-6.
8312050182 831130 )
PDR ADOCK 05000440 '
G PDR
OCRE's Motion recognizes that "[d]iscovery in this proceeding 4
has been closed for some time." / As noted at pages 1-2 of OCRE's Motion, the Licensing Board has previously imposed cut-off dates 5/
of September 30, 1982 for Issue 6 and 8, and January 31, 1983 6/
for Issues 14 and 15.- OCRE believes that "[a]t the times they were imposed, these restrictions were reasonable."7 /
The Motion states that, because the original hearing schedule for these issues has been delayed, and in consideration of the passage of time since the close of discovery, the discovery restric-tions "no longer serve the purposes for which they were adopted."-8/
The Motion further asserts, without factual basis, that "[t]he closure of discovery has shackled OCRE by severely limiting its ability to properly prepare its case."-
9/
OCRE's arguments support-ing these assertions conflict with the Commission's Rules and Statement of Policy, as well as with the law of this case. They must be rejected.
OCRE first argues that its request is "not untimely under the rules," citing 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1) and Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 A.E.C. 457, 467 (1974). OCRE misreads 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(1) as indicating that 4/
Id. at 1.
5/
See Tr. 753.
6/
See Tr. 800-801. The Licensing Board required follow-up dis-covery on Issues 14 and 15 to be filed within seven days from the time of receipt of answers to initial discovery. Id.
7/
Motion at 1.
8/
- Id. at 2.
9/
_Id.
A.
discovery filed prior to a prehearing conference held pursuant 10 to S2.752 "cannot be untimely under the NRC's rules of practice."- /
Contrary to OCRE's construction of the regulation, 10 C.F.R.
S2.740(b)(1) merely establishes the S2.752 prehearing conference as an outside limit on discovery, and does not in any way preclude a licensing board from setting an earlier cut-off date. The introductory language of 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b), which modifies the provisions of S2.740(b)(1), explicitly states that.the scope of discovery may be "otherwise limited by the presiding officer in accordance with this section."
The Licensing Board in this case has implemented 10 C.F.R.
S2.740(b) in a manner wholly consistent with the Commission's Statement of Policy on the Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 N.R.C. 452 (1981), which instructs that the boards should manage and supervise all discovery, including not only the initial discovery directly following admission of contentions, but also any discovery conducted thereafter. The Commission again endorses the policy of voluntary discovery, and encour-ages the board, in consultation with the parties, to establish time frames for the completion of both voluntary and involuntary discovery. Each individual board shall deter-mine the method by which it supervises the discovery process. Possible methods include, but are not limited to, written reports from
- the parties, telephone calls, and status report conferences on the record. In virtually all instances, individual boards should schedule i an initial conference with the parties to l set a general discovery schedule immediately after contentions have been admitted.
l 11 l
Id.,13 N.R.C. at 456 (emphasis added).- / The Licensing Board l
has utilized all of the suggested management tools noted above, 10/
, _ I_d. at 3-4.
l 11/
See Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-22, 14 N.R.C. 150, 154-57 (1981).
0 including the establishment of reasonable discovery time frames, in recognition of the fact that "the Commission expects us to 12/
manage the discovery process in the interest of expedition."--
Commonwealth Edison Co., ALAB-196, which OCRE cites, does not support a wholesale lifting of the established discovery cut-offs in this case. The question considered by the Appeal Board in ALAB-196 was whether the licensing board had acted properly in granting a motion to quash a subpoena. The Appeal Board found, among other things, that the subpoena request was filed within the period for initiation of discovery authorized by the licensing board, that the subpoena in question met the Commission's " general relevance" standard applicable to obtaining discovery by subpoena, and that "there was no warrant for any speculation by the Licensing Board that granting the discovery would inevitably have led to delay." ALAB-196, 7 A.E.C. at 464, 466. In light of these and other findings, the Appeal Board ruled that the licensing board 13 abused its discretion in quashing the subpoena in question.- /
Thus, ALAB-196 involved timely filed discovery in a factual setting 12/
- Memorandum and Order Concerning the Status of Ashtabula County and Objections to the Special Prehearing Conference Order, LBP-81-35, 14 N.R.C. 682, 689 (1981). See Tr. 751 ("The Board can establish discovery deadlines, that is clear, and we were requested to do so by the Commission, and a public notice to that effect.")
13/
The Appeal Board emphasized that "[o]ur ruling on the timeliness of the instant discovery request should not be taken as denigrat-ing the significance of requiring that parties ' discovery requests be filed in a manner consistent with the goal of carrying on and completing licensing proceedings expeditiously."
_I d_ . , 7 A.E.C. at 467.
i
8 l
j l
14/
completely dissimilar to our own, and is therefore inapposite.--
In both the August 13, 1982 and November 15, 1982 telephone conferences, the Licensing Board made it abundantly clear that additional discovery, beyond the targeted deadlines, would be 15/
available upon a showing of good cause.-- This is consistent with the Commission's rules. See 10 C.F.R. SS 2.711 and 2.732.
OCRE's Motion cites only two relatively limited areas, both relating 16/
to Issue #8,-- in which it seeks additional discovery.' If OCRE believes that it has good cause to file discovery with respect to these or other areas, OCRE has only to seek a good cause exception to the discovery cut-off under the Licensing Board's prior rulings in this case. (In this regard, the same standard will be applied whether the information sought is proprietary or non proprietary.
See Motion at 5). The parties have, in fact, successfully utilized l
14/
Similarly, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), LBP-78-20, 7 N.R.C. 1038, 1040 (1978), cited by OCRE at page 2 of its Motion, involves the application of the " general relevance" standard of 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(1) and does not involve the question, which OCRE raises, of removing established discovery cut-offs.
15/
See, e.g., Tr. 753 ("The Board in setting a target understands that there may be good cause for exceeding these deadlines.
We would not expect them to be exceeded without good cause.").
See also Tr. 800-01 ("After considering the arguments, we have decided to set a January 31 cut-off date on initial discovery requests on issues 13 through 15 subject to a showing of good cause for late filing.")
16/
OCRE asserts that it is entitled to receive information on hydrogen ignition experiments being conducted by the Hydrogen Control Owners' Group, and proprietary portions of a Westinghouse
- Electric Corp. publication on the CLASIX-3 computer program.
i See Motion at 4-5. Applicant is willing to discuss with OCRE the basis for OCRE's assertion that such information is relevant to Issue #8; however, OCRE's two specific requests under Issue
- 8 hardly justify a blanket reopening of discovery on Issues 6, 8, 14 and 15.
l
e the good cause exception to obtain extensions of the discovery 17/
schedule in specific instances.--
Thus, there is already a procedural mechanism in place for intervenors to obtain discovery as to relevant matters that were not known at the time of the discovery cut-off date. See Tr.
737-38. It.is therefore not " imperative that discovery be reopened" for "[n]ew information and data [which] are continuously being 18 generated with respect to the issues in question."- /
The Licensing Board has previously rejected a similar blanket motion, filed by Sunflower, to extend for an indefinite period of time the discovery schedule for Issue #1. Sunflower argued, among other things, that relevant information (final emergency plans) had yet to be published on Issue #1, that this information would have to be reviewed, and that "[s]ince there is no hearing date yet in place on this issue, no one (Applicant, Staff or Intervenors) would be prejudiced by permitting the time for discovery 17/ See, e.g., Memorandum and Order Concerning Motion For Extension of Time, dated October 28, 1981 (granting Sunflower Alliance, Inc. a 30-day extension of time within which to respond to Applicants' first set of interrogatories); Order Concerning Motion For Extension of Time, dated November 6, 1981 (granting OCRE a 30-day extension of time within which to respond to Applicants' first set of interrogatories); Letter, Applicants' Counsel to Licensing Board, dated April 4, 1983 (confirming the Board's granting of an extension of time within which to file follow-up interrogatories on Issues 13, 14 and 15).
18/
~- Motion at 4.
19/
See Sunflower Alliance Inc. Application To Extend Discovery Time on Contention One, dated September 30, 1982.
I
.
- to remain open on this contention." The Licensing Board denied Sunflower's motion, stating, the purpose cf a discovery cut-off date is to require a party to complete as much discovery as is feasible before that date. The fact that Sunflower will obtain additional information in the future will permit it to argue that it has good cause for late-filing of interrogatories with respect to that material, providing that the information was not previously available to it.
We will not deprive Sunflower of its fair opportunity to seek discovery of matters' not previously known to it, but that is not a reason to extend the deadline on matters already known to it.
Memorandum and Order (concerning Request to Extend Discovery 21 /
on Issue #1), dated October 8, 1982, at 1.- Appl,icants submit that the same principles require the rejection of OCR3's Motion to lift the discovery cut-offs for Issues 8, 6, 14 and 15.
OCRE's final argument in support of its Motion is that "prac-tically unlimited discovery" is necessary "so as not to abridge 22/
OCRE's cross examination rights in the future."-- OCRE cites two procedural rulings by the Licensing Board during the Issue
- 3 hearings, which assertedly " limited intervenors' cross examination on the grounds that the questions could have been (but were not) 23 asked during discovery. Tr. 1074, 1530-1."- /
20/
Id at 1.
21/
-- C f . Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. 1649, 1665 (1982).
22/
Motion at 5.
--23/
_I_d.
t While Applicants believe that the rulings in question were 24/
proper,- the appropriateness of two discretionary rulings in a completed hearing on Issue #3 can have no conceivable relevance to the question of lifting discovery cut-offs on Issues 6, 8, 14 and 15. OCRE fails to explain how " practically unlimited discovery," in unspecified areas, will aid its future cross-examination rights. It is not possible for other parties or the Licensing Board to speculate in this regard.
For all the stated reasons, the Licensing Board should deny OCRE's Motion.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE s
By: '
- II JAY E. S LBERG, P.C.'
HARRY H GLASSPIEGEL
[/
Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 DATED: November 30, 1983 i
l 24
-/
In one case, contrary to OCRE's assertion, the Licensing Board made clear that cross-examination would not be limited. See Tr. 1532 (permitting questions by OCRE or Sunflower on Applicants' testimony in response to Board questions). In the other case, i
OCRE's cross-examination was neither relevant nor material, and called for speculation. See Tr. 1074.
6 November 30, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
) .
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 l ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441 '
) l (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy Motion to Reopen Discovery on Issues 6, 8, 14 and 15" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 30th day of November, 1983 to all those on the attached Service List.
I Harry H. lasspiegel "
DATED: November 30, 1983
s l
!4 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
) Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
)
l In the Matter of )
i
) Docket Nos. 50-440 ;
l THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC 50-441
)
} ILLUMINATING COMPANY (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) $
Units 1 and 2) ) /
?
(
! SERVICE LIST Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
- Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 20555 Washington, D.C.
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative Appeal Board 8275 Munson Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mentor, Ohio 44060 Washington, D.C. 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire Dr. John H. Buck 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Toledo, Ohio 43624 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake County Administration Center Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John G. Cardinal, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
w - - - __ .- ._ , . . - , ._. , . , -
. _ -