ML20085K784
| ML20085K784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1983 |
| From: | Conner T CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER & WETTERHAHN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310210153 | |
| Download: ML20085K784 (21) | |
Text
_ .
00CMETED USNRC 13 00120 All:10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
?tUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..- ,- - . ,
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. H . Zimmer Nuclear Power )
Station) ; )
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING REOPENING Preliminarv Statement In its Memorandum and Order,M issued September 15, 1983, the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board" or " Board") denied the motion of intervenor Miami Valley Power Project ("MVPP") to reopen the record for admission of eight late contentions on quality assurance. The Board also denied .MVPP's request for ancillary relief, terminated MVPP's right to participate in this proceeding and denied MVPP's request to take up its I
contentions sua sponte. On October 3, 1983, MVPP filed a petition seeking reconsideration of the Memorandum and
-1/
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , Docket No. 50-358-OL,
" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on MVPP's Motion to Reopen the R5Nrd) " (September 15, 1983) (hereinafter l ,
" Memorandum ans Order").
8310210153 831018 PDR ADOCK 05000358 0 PDR l
~ - _ - -.- _ - _ - - _ _ , - - _ _ _ ~ -
- - Order. The motion is principally a challenge to the Licensing Board's finding that MVPP has not demonstrated
" good cause" for its late contentions. / As discussed below, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (" Applicants")
oppose the motion for reconsideration.
While a party certainly has the right to seek reconsideration of an adverse Board ruling,- a more inappropriate order for reconsideration could scarcely be imagined. The memoranda, affidavits and other papers filed by MVPP with this Board in support of its June 3, 1983 motion to reopen have exhaustively set forth its legal position on satisfying the Commission's requirements for late contentions and reopening. MVPP simply engages in the old tactic of attempting to recharacterize its contentions to overcome an evident lack of " good cause" in filing them much sooner.A/ Nothing new of substance has been advanced.
2_/
In a Memorandum dated October 13, 1983, the City of Mentor supports the request for reconsideration. This brief adds nothing substantively to MVPP's arguments and Applicants do not, therefore, respond to it separately.
3/ Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-80-41, 12 NRC 650, 652 (1980);
Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253, 260 (1978).
4_/ As the Board aptly noted in denying reopening, MVPP's initial characterization of its late contentions changed abruptly after receiving the Applicant's and Staff's opposition to reopening. Memorandum and Order at 14-16.
, Moreover, much of its latest request for reconsideration is devoted to a general discussion of adjudicatory hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" Commission" or "NRC"), which is wholly lacking in any relevance.
MVPP obviously intends to appeal the denial of reopening.1I The Licensing Board has undoubtedly given thorough and careful analysis to the facts and issues before it in determining that, as a legal matter, MVPP has not shown " good cause" for its lateness. Accordingly, in the interest of resolving MVPP's appeal expeditiously, the Licensing Board should summarily deny the request for reconsideration in order to permit the appeal process to go forward.5!
Argument I. The Factual Developments Alleged By MVPP Are Legally Irrelevant.
MVPP first alleges that significant factual developments have occurred since issuance of the Memorandum and Order. Preliminarily, it is noted that reconsideration 5_/
Concurrently with its request for reconsideration, MVPP requested the Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board") to extend the appeal period. This request was granted in an Order dated October 6, 1983.
-6/ In this respect, Applicants do not, of course, necessarily agree with all aspects of the Memorandum and Order. Nonetheless, they see nothing to be gained by asking the Licensing Board to reconsider the legal positions which Applicants have already thoroughly briefed.
. is not a proper vehicle to consider allegedly "new" evidence.1I Even assuming that MVPP's "new" allegations could be considered in this manner, the Licensing Board has already disposed of this argument in finding that MVPP's June 3, 1983 motion merely " adds meat to the bones of the 1982 allegations,"8_/ or, as MVPP itself put it, "further refine (s], expand [s] and strengthen (s) the 1982 (contentions]."1/ Applicant has previously briefed this point thoroughly. Mere supplementation of an intervenor's proposed contention does not, under the Commission's recent Catawba decision,5! cure a petitioner's lateness in not filing the same contention earlier based upon previously available information. In the interest of brevity, Applicants respectively refer the Licensing Board to its previous briefs.UI 7/ See Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek
~
Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-477, 7 NRC 766, 768 (1978); Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-467, 7 NRC 459, 462 (1978).
8_/ Memorandum and Order at 23.
9/ Id. at 28, quoting MVPP Motion to Reopen (June 3, 1783).
M/ Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC _ (June 30, 1983).
11/ Applicant's Answer to MVPP's Motion to Reopen at 24-29 (June 20, 1983); Applicant's Response to Reply Brief by MVPP in Support of Motion to Reopen at 10-14 (August 3, 1983). While the Licensing Board stated that the (Footnote Continued)
. The "new" factual developments raised by MVPP fail as a matter of law for another reason. Current cost estimates for building the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station
("Zimmer") have no bearing on any quality assurance issue.
The Commission has repeatedly disavowed any connection between the two. As the Commission most recently stated in Maine Yankee, its new rule eliminating the submission of information on the applicant's financial qualifications "noted the absence of evidence that financial problems are inevitably linked with corner-cutting on safety." E Similarly, in the Seabrook proceeding, the Commission stated:
Counsel for Massachusetts expressed concern not so much with deliberate efforts to depart from safety standards, but rather with financial difficulties that might lead utility personnel, as a matter of human nature, to view potential safety problems with less seriousness than might otherwise be the case. However, recent experience does not suggest that a utility short of fund will cut corners on safety. In the past few years, many utilities in the process of constructing nuclear facilities have experienced unforeseen financial difficulties. Common responses have been to slow down construction or to suspend construction altogether. Such a l
, (Footnote Continued) i latter pleading had not been considered by the Board, (Memorandum and Order at 3 n.1), the Board may consider it now in opposition to the request by MVPP for reconsideration.
- 12/ Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station) , CLI-83-21, 18 NRC (August 2, 1983)
(slip op, at 3).
l
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . ~ , . . .
response is not surprising in view of the fact that the sums involved in the process of building a nuclear power plant, even over a relatively short segment of the whole process, can run to the tens of millions, amounts far exceeding the comparatively small sums a utility might expect to save by cutting corners in construction. M/
A substantial portion of MVPP's brief discusses NRC hearings in general. Contrary to MVPP's assertion, hearings are not " mandatory"E! at the operating licensing stage,E i
and are certainly not mandatory for late contentions which do not pass muster under the Commission's Rules of Practice M/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 18-19 (1978). The Commission therefore dismissed the opposing argument as involving " speculative and conflicting considerations." Id. The Licensing Boards have followed suit, e.g., HouTton Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL and STN 50-499 OL, " Memorandum and Order (Denying CCANP's Motion to Reopen Record)"
(January 10, 1983) (slip op. at 3-4); commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL and STN 50-455 OL, " Memorandum and Order" (August 26, 1982) (slip op. at 5-6). MVPP's contrived assertion that " Applicants will have to j
rebuild the plant" (MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 3) is wholly unsupported and utterly meaningless.
M/ MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 4.
! 15/ Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 649 (1979); Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 582 (1978);
l Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 9 (1976).
l
. a for admission. E In short, the value of evidentiary hearings in the abstract has no bearing on accepting or rejecting late contentions.
Perhaps the most abstruse argument by MVPP is that the Commission's reassignment of Mr. James Cummings, former Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor, necessitates analysis in order to evaluate whether " good cause" exists J
for MVPP's late contentions. This crass and cynical attempt by MVPP to employ the Commission's action to its advantage is entirely lacking in substance. Against MVPP's assertions j
that "the NRC staff censored the public record" and engaged 6
1_6,/ Accordingly, the recent decision in Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) , ALAB-740, 18 NRC "
(September 14, 1983), is inapposite. That decision d'id not involve late quality assurance contentions.
Indeed, the decision supports Applicant's position. It clearly states that "in examining claims of quality assurance deficiencies, one must look to the implication of those deficiencies in terms of safe plant operation." Callaway, supra, ALAB-740 (slip op.
at 2) . As Applicants have pointed out, meaningful examination of such implications necessarily involves consideration of the requirements under the Commission's Order to Show Cause issued on November 12, 1982, i.e., the independent management review, comprehensive plan for the verification of the quality of construction at Zimmer, including a requirement for an independent audit, and plan for the completion of construction. Zimmer, supra, CLI-82-33, 16 NRC 1489 (1982).
-17/ Certainly, whether "this Board may have underestimated
> the intensity of public concern over Zimmer" (MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 9) is totally irrelevant.
,y-.- -p meg r-, . + - - 7 --.,.e.w-p. .--y, y ,.r.,,,-w,, ,,,--,,.-m-. , , , y- - . , . .- * , , - , , - , . . - , . . . , _ . - - , - - . . , , - , - .
. in " manipulation of the FOIA," EI not a shred of evidence is presented to show that MVPP did not have available to it any portion of the public record necessary to file its contentions timely. The issue of why Mr. Cummings was replaced or whether any improprieties were involved is obviously not for this Board to determine. For all its posturing, MVPP ignores the central thrust of the Licensing Board's denial of reopening, i.e., that MVPP has failed to show " good cause" for not having come forward with its evidence much sooner.EI II. The Licensing Board Correctly Held That MVPP Had Failed To Show
" Good Cause" For Its Lateness.
The extended dissertation by MVPP oil the
" reasonableness" of the time it took to digest certain new information prior to filing its June 3, 1983 motion is wholly irrelevant. The Board found that nothing in that information was "not within the contemplation of the 1982 M/ MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 12.
19/ Here again, MVPP practices its habit of leveling serious ethical charges very cavalierly. It asserts that the Board should not excuse "the NRC staff and CG&E from all liability before this Board for withholding relevant information for years." MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 13 (emphasis added).
MVPP nowhere states what " relevant information" has been withheld by CG&E from this Board, the NRC or any other body to which it was obliged to furnish such information.
. contentions."E/ There was therefore no reason for considering the June 3, 1983 motion as raising anything "new" of independent significance apart from the contentions previously pleaded.
MVPP also claims legal error in the Board's application of the three requirements for reopening. It ignores the fact, however, that in order to justify a reopening for its late contentions, the Board would have to find that all three requirements have been satisfied. In Diablo Canyon, the Commission squarely held:
Where a motion to , reopen relates to a previously uncontested issue, the moving party must satisfy both the standards for admitting late-filed contentions, 10 CFR 2.714 (a) , and the criteria established by case law for reopening the record.22/
Since the Board herein correctly determined that MVPP had not shown " good cause" for its lateness, it necessarily
(
20/ Memorandum and Order at 24.
21/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear
~
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) , CLI-82-39, 16 NRC 1712, 1714-15 (1982), citing Diablo Canyon, supra, CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361 (1981). See also Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707, 16 NRC 1760, 1765 (1982). In the Enrico Fermi case, the Appeal Board also notEd that a late petitioner has an alternative means available to protect its interests in the filing of a petition under 10 C.F.R. S2.206. The Appeal Board referred the petitioner's late intervention petition to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to be treated as such. I_dd . at 1768-69.
l - - -
. found that MVPP had not satisfied the first criterion for reopening, i.e., that the motion be timely.S!
The Board's decision is further supported by similar action taken b;r the Licensing Board in Comanche Peak,E!
where the Board denied a motion to reopen which, like here, presented materials "in dribs and drabs."E! The Board stated:
When a party moves to reopen the record on an issue that is part of an ongoing proceeding, it must demonstrate that its motion is timely and that it raises an issue of substance. In this instance {intervenor] has demonstrated -
through its candor -
that portions of its motion are not timely. Much of the material it now seeks to introduce was 2_2_/
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978).
As regards the other criteria under Wolf Creek for reopening, involving a determination as to whether a significant safety or environmental issue exists, and whether its consideration would have changed the result of the proceeding, the Board disposed of these matters in the discussion of its sua sponte authority. It l correctly noted that, while it initially invoked its sua sponte authority, the Commission overruled this decision. Memorandum and Order at 39, citing Zimmer, supra, CLI-82-20, 16 NRC 109 (1982). On this point, the Licensing Board therefore stated: "We are not persuaded from MVPP's motion that anything has transpired since the issuance of LBP-83-54 which would lead to the conclusion that the Commission would hold a different view of the matter now." Id. Thus, the Board did address the significance oT MVPP's late contentions.
Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam l
l M/ Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, " Memorandum and Order (Motions to Reopen l the Record and to Strike)" (September 1, 1983).
24/ Id. at 2.
. in its possession during the hearing that terminated two months ago. . . .
We have been impressed by (intervenor's] diligence, acting as volunteers without pay, in pursuing its case. However, there is simply no acceptable excuse for waiting this long.
Indeed, the passage of time, during which this material slipped from (intervenor's] minds, detracts from (intervenor's] claim that this material is essential to its case.
The standard governing reopening of the record is an important one.
Hearings must not be open-ended. Even in cases as important as this one, there must be some point at which a hearing has an end. Furthermore, there must be s a strong incentive for a party to raise all important matters at a hearing so that they may be subject to cross-examination and rebuttal and to clarifying questions from the Board.
Parties must also be able to prepare their findings with a common understanding of the evidentiary record.M/
In short, MVPP attempts to eliminate those of the Commission's requirements for admitting late contentions and reopening a proceeding which it has not satisfied. Only recently, however, in the Seabrook case, the Commission reaffirmed its holding in Catawba "that the admissibility of a late-filed contention must be determined by a balancing of j
all five of the late intervention factors in 10 CFR
- 2. 714 (a) ," which " involve careful consideration of the contents of the contention and the circumstances under which 25/ Id. at 2-4.
. - -. . _ __ =
. the contantion is offered."EI MVPP simply confuses the standards for sua sponte actions with those governing its participation as an intervenor.
The remainder of MVPP's discussion of reopening and late contention standards amounts to a repetition of its earlier argument that the "new" information it furnished the Board in support of its contentions justifies its having failed to come forward with the information it did have ,
available at an earlier time. b As the Board aptly noted, t
j 26/
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook
- Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-23, 18 NRC (September 19, 1983) (slip op, at 1-2) (emphasis in original).
21 / Here also, MVPP engages in serious misrepresentations of the record. For example, it states that "the Commission declined to accept MVPP's platter (i.e.,
contentions] because it was all bones (i.e., that they lacked substantive content] . " MVPP's Petii. ion for Reconsideration at 19. On the contrary, the Commission has never considered the acceptability of MVPP's contentions. It merely determined that the Board could not consider them utilizing its sua sponte authority, Zimmer, supra, CLI-82-20, 16 NRC 109 (1982), and offered MVPP an opportunity to persuade the Board that they were acceptable as late contentions, Zimmer, supra, CLI-83-4, 17 NRC (February 18, 1983).
Similarly, MVPP asserts without any basis that "the i Torrey Pines Report reveals that Applicants' tradition of material false statements to the NRC continued l
unabated . . . . "
MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 21. Nothing in the Torrey Pines Report states that Applicants made any material false statements to the Commission, nor has the Commission ever made such a finding. The Notice of Violation issued by the NRC on November 24, 1981 to Applicants cited examples of quality records which were " false" in that certain 1 information had been misstated or omitted from these site documents. As the Board is aware, however, this (Footnote Continued)
I i
- this new information simply " adds meats to the bones of the 1982 allegations,"E raises ~ nothing new beyond that which was within the contemplation of the original allegations and does not, in any sense , excuse MVPP's extreme tardiness in presenting the information originally supportive of its contentions. Finally, MVPP erroneously argues that the record should be reopened since hearing would not delay Zimmer startup.h! As stated in the Commission's regulations, th$ fifth criterion for accepting late contentions is athe extent to which the petitioner's participation "will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding," ! not the facility's startup.
(Footnote Continued) is light years away from making a deliberate material false statement to the Commission.
M/ Memorandum and Order at 23.
M/ MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 27.
30/ 10 C.F.R. S2.714 (a) (1) (v) (emphasis added). It appears
~~
that the Licensing Board incorrectly accepted MVPP's reformulation of the fifth criterion for considering late contentions. Memorandum and Order at 35. See Enrico Fermi, supra, ALAB-707, 16 NRC at 1766; Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-30, 17 NRC (June 22, 1983)
(slip op. at 21). See also Seabrook, supra, CLI-83-23 (slip op, at 2).
_g . _ , . _ _ ,y _-y , . - - . - . , , - - - - - - ,
_ _ . __ , y -- - - _ _ . , . , . , - . __,,..._,er- -- - , _ , , ,,.
. III. The Licensing Board Correctly Applied The Standards Set Forth In ALAB-704.
MVPP disputes the Board's application of the Grand Gulf 31 decision / in ALAB-704 to this case. Quite simply, MVPP misapprehends the Board's analysis. The Board correctly found that MVPP had failed to show " good cause" and, on the basis of ALAB-704, ruled that MVPP must make a compelling showing on the other four factors for consider.ing late contentions.N The Board did not purport to find (and need not have found) that the absence of " good cause" in ALAB-704 was equivalent to MVPP 's lack of " good cause" here. MVPP has completely misstated this holding in asserting that the Board reqtiired it to make a compelling showing "under two new criteria - contribution to the record and delay." EI Not only is there nothing "new" about these requirements, but the Board's findings that MVPP had failed to make a compelling showing on its ability to contribute to the record was clearly correct.b MVPP's discussion of M/ Mississippi Power & Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725 (1982).
H/ The Appeal Board recently reiterated this standard in Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-743, 18 NRC (September 29, 1983) (slip op, at 17).
M/ MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 28 (emphasis added).
34/ Moreover, as the Appeal Board recently emphasized, a (Footnote Continued)
I
. l I
this criterion, its ability to contribute to the record, simply repeats the self-laudatory assertions which have frequently appeared in its pleadings. None of these wildly subjective claims expressing MVPP's grandiose view of itself in this proceeding is supported by the record. The Licensing Board was clearly correct that MVPP's helter-skelter method of filing documents whenever it seemed to serve its purposes creates serious reservations about MVPP's ability to make a meaningful and significant contribution to the record.35/
MVPP's discussion of delay of the proceeding completely talks around this factor. Instead, it again addresses the significance of its contentions. As discussed, supra, delay of the proceeding, the true test under the fifth criterion for late contentions, would be both substantial and inevitable. As the Board found, "it is true that admission (Footnote Continued) petitioner addressing this criterion should set out with particularity the precise issues it wishes to litigate, identify prospective witnesses and summarize proposed testimony. Shoreham, supra, ALAB-743 (slip op. at 22). As the Board here found, MVPP had done absolutely nothing to specify precise issues, and it certainly had not identified prospective witnesses or summarized their testimony.
35/ Because the Board referred to MVPP's tardiness in pursuing its procedural rights (Memorandum and Order at 34), MVPP alleged that its lateness had been counted twice against it. MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 32. Rather, Applicants understand the Board to be referring to the kind of " dribs and drabs" approach to presenting allegations which was criticized by the Board in Comanche Peak, supra.
. of these contentions will broaden the issues and delay the completion of the proceeding."El The Board itself has recognized that, in their present state, "the contentions are largely open-ended" and, "if litigated, virtually any new development in the quality assurance area would become relevant.37/ Given MVPP's contentions, "the Board would be faced with a virtually open-ended review of the Zimmer quality assurance situation."E Under such circumstances, the fact that delay of the proceeding would occur is indisputable. This criterion, which "is of immense importance in the overall balancing process,"E clearly weighs in Applicants' favor.
IV. Other Relief Sought By MVPP Should Be Denied.
MVPP requests that this Licensing Board reconsider denial of its motion asking the Board to review investigative files of Administrative Law Judge Hoyt and the Office of Investigations. Applicants have previously demonstrated why this Board should not undertake to review those matters.EI Additionally, the Board correctly ruled 36/ Memorandum and Order at 35.
37/ Id. at 38.
38/ Id.
g/ Shoreham, suora, ALAB-743 (slip op. at 27).
40/ Applicant's Answer to MVPP Motion for Leave to Submit New Evidence at 8-9 (September 12, 1983).
t
o . .
that the Commission's Statement of Policy on Investigations and Adjudicatory Proceedings 41/ was not intended to enable a petitioner to help formulate contentions for admission to the proceeding.42/ In any event, nothing in those files could justify MVPP's lateness in presenting its proposed contentions. At most, it would simply involve an attempt to add "more meat to the bones."
Finally, MVPP's request that the Board exercise its sua sponte review authority should be denied. Noting that the Commission had overturned an earlier exercise of sua sponte authority on the same contentions,NI the Board correctly held, consistent with its findings as to the nature of MVPP's assertedly "new" evidence, that nothing has transpired since that time which would lead one to conclude that "the Commission would hold a different view of the matter now."b!
Predictably, MVPP nonetheless argues that the Commission would have a different view at this time. It is obviously inappropriate, however, for the Licensing Board to second guess the Commission at this juncture, especially l
given the Commission's close, ongoing oversight of quality I
g/ 48 Fed. Reg. 36358 (August 10, 1983).
I g/ Memorandum and Order at 25.
g/ Zimmer, supra, CLI-81-20, 16 NRC 109 (1982).
44_/ Memorandum and Order at 39.
18 -
assurance issues at Zimmer and the fact that MVPP will undoubtedly seek Commission review of the Board's decision.45/ Finally, this Board does not have authority under its expressly delegated jurisdiction to conduct, as .
MVPP requests, a general, ongoing supervision of the completion of con 3truction at Zimmer.46/
Conclusion For the reasons discussed more fully above, MVPP has failed to identify any legal error by the Licensing Board or to present any matter of consequence sufficient to warrant reconsideration by the Board of its decision denying i
l l
l 45/ In this regard, it is presumptuous for MVPP to assert that the Commissioners will not adhere to their commitment to maintain such oversight because i " sustained intensive personal oversight by the i Commissioners would be unrealistic and counterproductive for other plants." MVPP's Petition for Reconsideration at 35.
46/ See Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), CLI-80-12, 11 NRC 514 (1980).
l l
l-- -- --
o .
)
reopening. The motion should be summarily denied so that the appeal process may promptly commence.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
/ ,
Troy B. Conner, Jr. 1 Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Counsel for Applicants October 18, 1983
.y---- .--,-y,.--- .- . . ...----,-m ,. .y- - ,- - . . . . - - - - - w.y.. , , -,--m.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. H . Zimmer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Miami Valley Power Project's Petition for Reconsideration of Memorandum and Order Denying Reopening," dated October 18, 1983, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this'18th day of October, 1983:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. Frank F. Hooper Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman of Resource l Appeal Board Ecology Program t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural
- Commission Resources Washington, D.C. 20555 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Stephen F. Eilperin Atomic Safety and Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Licensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1005 Calle Largo Commission Sante Fe, NM 87501 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety Howard A. Wilber and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Board Panel Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety i
l Judge John H. Frye, III and Licensing Board Chairman, Atomic Safety and Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l Washington, D.C. 20555
5 .
Charles A. Barth, Esq. David K. Martin, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff Assistant Attorney General Office of the Executive Acting Director Legal Director Division of U.S. Nuclear hegulatory Environmental Law Commission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Deborah Faber Webb, Esq.
7967 Alexandria Pike George E. Pattison, Esq.
Alexandria, Kentucky 41001 Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio Andrew B. Dennison, Esq. 462 Main Street Attorney at Law Batavia, Ohio 45103 200 Main Street Batavia, OPio 45103 William J. Moran, Esq.
Vice President and Lynne Bernabei, Esq. General Counsel Government Accountability The Cincinnati Gas &
Project /IPS Electric Company 1901 0 Street, N.W. P.O. Box 960 Washington, D.C. 20009 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 John D. Woliver, Esq. Docketing and Service Clermont County Branch Office of the Community Council Secretary U.S. Nuclear Box 181 Regulatory Batavia, Ohio 45103 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Brian Cassidy, Esq.
Regional Counsel Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.
Federal Emergency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Management Agency Commission Region I Region III John W. McCormick POCH 799 Roosevelt Road Boston, MA 02109 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
,~ _
Robert M. Rader cc: Robert F. Warnick Director, Enforcement and Investigation NRC Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
_- _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . . - _ _ _ - ._ -