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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ - -
3 4
00LKETED January 6, 1984 N
'84 JIR 10 A10:10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CFFICE OF 3ECCtT s 00CKETING A SEFVu '
BRANCH
. t Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440 COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
-Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO OCRE AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON COMSTOCK ISSUES I. Background On November 25, 1983, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE) filed a " Motion to Reopen the Record On Comstock Issues" (Motion). OCRE supplemented the Motion by letter dated November 30, 1983. OCRE's Motion was based on newspaper arti-cles concerning allegations made by,three former L.K. Comstock inspectors. On December 19, 1983, Applicants filed their Answer, opposing the Motion.lf 1/ " Applicants' Answer to OCRE Motion to Reopen the Record on Comstock Issues," dated December 19, 1983 (Answer to Motion).
We noted in our Answer that we would " address the remedies por-
- t. ion of OCRE's request (i.e., the question of holding an open-ended in camera ' exploratory' hearing)" in the instant re-sponse. M. at n.3.
p j 840 110159 840106 PDR ADOCK 05000440 iA PDR e
- -_____- _ - _ __- _ -_ _ n
l 4
On December 8, 1983, OCRE filed an " Amendment to Motion to Reopen the Record on Comstock Issues" (Amended Motion). The Amended Motion is based on a December 1, 1983 Lake County News-Herald article concerning allegations made by Richard Wade, a former inspector with Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), an-other contractor at Perry. In its original Motion, OCRE had proposed that the Board " utilize $he NRC Office of Investiga-tions (headquartern personnel) as its investigatory arm" to question certain persons, obtain affidavits, and conduct inves-tigations. OCRE also stated that "if a hearing is held, the
[Comstock) inspectors (and others who have information which contradicts the views of Staff and Applicants but who do not i
wish to appear on behalf.of intervenors) should-be called as Board witnesses."2/ In its Amended Motion, OCRE states, with reference to the December 1, 1983 News-Herald article:
Because the allegations raised therein concern a different contractor (footnote omitted] and are much broader in scope than thoseLin the three previous articles, OCRE finds it necessary to amend some of the particular requests in its motion.
OCRE now believes that, rather than than having OI take affidavits, justice and expediency (footnote omitted] might be better served by having the Board conduct an in camera exploratory hearing at which Perry workers can, without fear of publici-ty, reveal their concerns, under oath, to 2f OCRE Motion at-3-4.
)
1 F
(
the Board. All such persons appearing would be considered Board witnesses.
[ footnote omitted] This exploratory hear-ing would serve to alert the Board to issues for consideration in later evidenti-ary hearings.3/ ,
As OCRE acknowledges,4/ its Amended Motion falls beyond the limited scope of Issue #3 as defined, and decided, by the Licensing Board.E/ However, "OCRE trusts that the Board will reopen the record to include all serious issues (of which Staff and Applicants were apparently unaware) raised by Perry workers, regardless of their relevance to the Comstock issue."g/
i While we believe the Board would be justified in dis-missing OCRE's Amended Motion as falling outside the scope of Issue #3,7/ we are nonetheless furnishing the Board with Affi-davits,g/ providing ample basis for the Board to consider, and 3/ Amended Motion at 1-2.
4/ Amended Motion at n.1.
}/' See Partial Initial Decision (Quality Assurance Conten-tion), LBP-83-77, 18 N.R.C. __ (1983) (Partial Initial Deci-sion), slip op. at 9.
g/ Amended Motion at n.1 (emphasis added).
.7 / OCRE makes no attempt to show compliance with the standards, in 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1), applicable to late-filed contentions.
g/ Affidavit of Steve C. Young, dated January 6, 1984 (Young Affidavit); Affidavit of Emanuel Riley, dated January 6, 1984 (Riley Affidavit). Copies of the Affidavits are attached.
)
O 4
reject, OCRE's Amended Motion on the merits.9/ The Affidavits show that Mr. Wade was at Perry for only six weeks, and was
.only certified to perform inspections for two days prior to his termination. He inspected (and approved) only 16 welds, all of which have been reinspected and found to be acceptable. Mr.
Wade raised no safety concerns while at Perry. His charge that JCI officials passed out certification test answer sheets is completely without basis. Finally, the Affidavits show that Mr. Wade was terminated for good cause. Thus, contrary to OCRE's assertion in its Amended Motion, the newspaper charges, tested against the facts provided in Applicants' Affidavits, do not raise " serious issues." The Amended Motion, including all suggested procedural remedies, should therefore be denied.19/
s 9/ In our Answer to OCRE's original Motion, we reviewed the stringent legal standards applicable to motions to reopen a record. See Answer to Motion at 4-6.
19/ The NRC Staff has opposed OCRE's Motion, and Amended Motion,-by "NRC Staff Response in Opposition to OCRE Motion to Reopen the Record," dated December 22, 1983 (Staff Response).
_- . .. i
4 II.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS RELATING TO MR. WADE'S ALLEGATIONS The December 1, 1983 News-Herald article quotes Mr. Wade as claiming that "he approved thousands of faulty welds that could lead to a serious nuclear accident at the plant." The claim is false. Mr. Wade worked at Perry for only six weeks,
~
between October 4, 1983, and November 15, 1983, and was not certified to perform inspections until November 11, 1983. He inspected a total of 16 welds on the two days he performed in-spections. The welds-did not involve any of the hardware concerns discussed in the News-Herald article.11/ After re-viewing the newspaper article, containing Mr. Wade's self-incriminating claim that he approved faulty welds, JCI and CEI reinspected the welds, and found them acceptable.12/ The only other specific hardware allegation in the newspaper artic:le relates to hydraulic piping system welds, which do not even fall under JCI's jurisdiction. Mr. Wade raised no concerns about the hydraulic piping system welds while at the plant.
All of the welds in question have received complete engineering and QA/QC review and approval, and have passed subsequent hy-drostatic testing.13/ Thus, Applicants' Affidavits show Mr.
- 1_1f Young Affidavit, 16 12/ Young Affidavit, 115; Riley Affidavit, 18.
13/. Riley Affidavit, 19; Young Affidavit, 116.
4 Wade's hardware allegations, as discussed in the newspaper ar-ticle, to be entirely false.
The News-Herald article also contains the serious charge by Mr. Wade that JCI officials furnished certification test answer sheets to inspectors " hoping to certify inspectors who could not recognize faulty construction." Applicants' Affida-vits answer the charge in detail, demonstrating that it is en-tirely without basis.14/ JCI's corporate QA Director (based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin), and Mr. Young, the senior site QA Manager for JCI, interviewed Mr. Wade's instructors and super-visors and found no basis for the charge. Mr. Young spoke with other inspectors taking tests in the same time frame as,Mr.
Wade, and found no basis for the charge.15/ CEI thoroughly in-vestigated and also found no basis to conclude that JCI officials had passed out answer sheets, or that other
~ ~ ~ ~
inspectorsobtainedorused-answerslEe~e~ts.5 -
Upon learning that Mr. Wade possessed copies of actual answer sheets, and before completing their investigations into Mr., Wade's charges, CEI and JCI jointly took a number of cor-rective actions. JCI's NDE certification exams 17/ were 14/ Young Affidavit, 119-14; Riley Affidavit, 116-7.
15/ Young Affidavit, 114.
16/ Riley Affidavit 17; Young Affidavit, 114.
~ 17/ JCI's closed-book, NDE certification exams are in accor-dance with Standards of the American National Standards (Continued Next Page)
J
rewritten, and all JCI inspectors and supervisors were re-examined.18/ JCI's entire inspection staff passed the re-examinations, confirming their qualifications.19/ In addition, test answer sheets have been moved to a more secure area, JCI's open-book tests are being revised, and open-book testing will be more closely supervised in the future.20/
Thus! CEI and JCI took immediate corrective actions to assure the integrity of JCI's certification program.
Mr. Wade is quoted in the News-Herald article as stating that "he thinks he was fired for raising too many questions at the plant."21/ Mr. Wade's speculation is without basis. The (Continued)
Institute and American Society for Nondestructive Testing.
JCI's open-book exame are not used for the purpose of cer-tifying inspectors to any Code or Standard, but are voluntarily-imposed training devices used to train JCI inspectors in project procedures. See Young Affidavit, 117, 8, 10-12.
12/ This was done despite the fact that only three other JCI inspectors had taken certification tests while Mr. Wade was employed at Perry. Also, JCI committed to re-inspecting all previous work of any individual failing the re-examinations.
Young Affidavit, 1110, 13.
19/ Young Affidavit, 113; Riley Affidavit, 17.
29/ Young Affidavit, 113. Riley Affidavit, 15.
21/ This contradicts another statement by Mr. Wade in the same newspaper story that "he didn't come forward for fear of losing his job" (emphasis added). Moreover, with regard to the state-ment that "he was fired for raising too many questions at the plant," the article fails to indicate what questions Mr. Wade raised which led to his termination.
i t
Young Affidavit details the sequence leading to Mr. Wade's ter-mination. The Affidavit shows that Mr. Wade failed to pass his .
probationary period as a new JCI inspector, because of serious management concerns over his conduct and attitude.22/ Mr. Wade did not raise safety concerns while at Perry, despite numerous procedural avenues, and active management encouragement, to do sv.23/ CEI has also carefully investigated Mr. Wado's charges that he and other JCI inspectors were improperly terminated, and has found it to be without basis.24/ Finally, Applicants' Affidavits 25/ refute Mr. Wade's generalized allegations about poor security, and intentional construction delays.25/
, III. Exploratory Hearings OCRE argues that the three newspaper stories attached to its original Motion, and the "much broader" newspaper story at-
~ ~
tached to its Amended Motion, lequire "an in c hera' exploratory
~~
hearing at which Perry workers can, without fear of publicity, reveal their concerns, under oath, to the Board."27/ OCRE 22/. Young Affidavit, 1119-21.
23/ Young Affidavit, 1117-18.
24/ Riley Affidavit, 110.
25/ Riley Affidavit, 111; Young Affidavit, 122.
2s/ Mr. Wade's published statements about intentional con-struction delays, and poor security, are not linked to quality concerns, and clearly fall outside Issue #3.
27/ Amended Motion at 1-2.
l - - -
m... . .
t .
would have Applicants post notices of such a hearing throughout the site, and in Ohio and Pennsylvania newspapers. OCRE also asks the Board to send letters to "all inspectors (CEI and con-tractor) whose employment at Perry has ceased within the last 12 months . . . explaining the purpose and circumstances of the hearing and specifically requesting their appearance." OCRE
~
cites, without reference or discussion, " rulings of the Catawba i -
Licensing Board" as " precedent for this action."28/
Whether or not OCRE's drastic procedural remedies are appropriate in other hearings, and in other (trcumstances, they are not appropriate here. The Issue #3 record is closed, and a decision has been issued. To justify the reopening of the Issue #3 record at this juncture in the case, and certainly to justify the drastic procedural steps advocated by OCRE, OCRE is obligated to produce facts showing significant safety issues.29/ OCRE has not made such a showing with respect to the Comsteck newspaper articles,30/ and it has not done so in 28/ Id. at 2-3. Applicants are not familiar with the details of the Catawba proceeding, and are unaware of the specific
" rulings" OCRE has in mind. We cannot, therefore, address whether procedures invoked in that proceeding were appropriate, or whether they have any applicability _to the facts, and present posture, of the Issue #3 proceeding.
29/ See Answer to Motion at 4-6, and cases cited therein.
30/ -Applicants have addressed the merits of the Comstock newspaper articles in our Answer to OCRE's Motion.
_9_
l
i the case of the newspaper article about Mr. Wade. Applicants' Affidavits in response to these stories have placed authorita-tive facts before the Board showing the absence of any safety issue. Moreover, OCRE should not be permitted to use the de-vice of an " exploratory hearing" to search for a basis to reopen.31/ As the moving party, CCRE has the obligation to demonstrate that a present basis exists th reopen the record.32/ OCRE has failed to do so.
CCRE's request that the Board send notices to inspectors, and that the Board sponsor wi 1ses, would require the Board to abandon its impartial, adjudicatory role and assume the in-vestigatory function of the NRC Staff.33/ T:lere is no justifi-cation for such action. The Staff has indicated that it is thoroughly investigating all matters raised by the four inspectors, and that it will assure that the necessary correc-tive actions are taken.3y Moreover, "Appiicant"s Affidavits 31/ Thus, OCRE's argument, at page 2 of its Amended Motion, that "[t]his exploratory hearing would serve to alert the Board to issues for consideration in later evidentiary hearings" (emphasis added) should be rejected.
- 32/ See 10 C.F.R. 52.732.
,33/ See Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1),
ALAB-750, 18 N.R.C. __ (1983), slip op. at 20 (addressing the division of responsibility between the Commission's adjudica-tory boards and its staff); Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-750A, 18 N.R.C. __ (1983), slip op. at 4.
34/ See Affidavit of James E. Konklin and Cordell C. Williams, dated December 16, 1983 (attached to the Staff Response).
clearly demonstrate that the Licensing Board has no basis, on the merits, to exercise the extreme option of calling Board witnesses, which should only be done in "the most extraordinary situation in which it is demonstrated beyond question that a ,
board simply cannot otherwise reach an informed decision on the issue involved."3_5/.
r Fi$ ally, OCRE urges that the exploratory hearings be held in camera, because of " fear of retaliation" and " fear of pub-licity."31/ The four inspectors cited by OCRE hardly have evi-denced a fear of publicity. Their assertions of having been discouraged from reporting problems while at the plant, and of improper terminations, are discredited, and disproved, by the facts set forth in Applicants' Affidavits. The Affidavits make clear that CEI, Comstock, and JCI have all encour' aged the re-porting of safety concerns. The inspector terminations in question have all been for good cause, with no evidence of any possible retaliatory intent on the part of Comstock, JCI, or CEI.
35/ South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nucle-ar Statien, Unit 1), ALAB-633, 14 N.R.C. 1140, 1163 (1981),
reaff'd, ALAB-710, 17 N.R.C. 25 (1983).
3s/ Amended Motion at 2, n.2.
4 IV. Conclusion For all of the above reasons, Applicants respectfully re-quest the Licensing Board to deny the Amended Motion.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, ?OTT~ & TROWBRIDGE By: OrR, s 90 '
JAY E. LBERG, P.C. F 6
HARRY GLASSPIEGEL Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 ,
(202) 822-1000 DATED: January 6, 1984
,,