|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
'
))h OctobQr 15, 1985 Cc:c rg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~65 r7 ,* f!1 :15 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ~ 'f 7 0
?, ,
In the Matter of )
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-498 ET g. ) 50-499
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, RE0PENING THE RECORD, ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTION, AND DISCOVERY l On September 30, 1985, CCANP filed a Motion requesting varied relief relating to two docurrents which are alleged to be important to the recently completed Phase Il portion of the South Texas operating license hearing. The documents involved are a consultant's report on Brown and Root Engineering practices provided to the South Texas applicants on October 1, 1984 (the SLI Report) and excerpts from a compilation of events put together by HL&P's Chairman (the " Jordan Diary"). In its Motion, CCANP asks the Board to order HL&P to produce copies of the SLI Report to the Board and parties; to reopen the record in order to admit both documents; to admit a late-filed contention concerning HL&P's alleged failure to notify the Board of the SLI Report; for discovery on both documents; and for an extension of time within which to file e
go180277
^ =cx 851015,o 030004 r e is ,-,
o p- , .S6
i proposedfindingsonthePhaseIIhearings.1/ The Staff herein responds to CCANP's Motion. For the reasons presented below, the Staff submits that the Motion should be denied.
1 I. THE SLI REPORT The SLI Report, as described by CCANP in its Motion, is a 650-page document prepared by Sol Levy, Inc. for HL&P's use in its litigation against Brown and Root. The Report, issued in 1984, provides a review of Brown and Root's design and engineering work at South Texas. The Repo*t, which was discussed at the prehearing conference on October 16, 1984 (see Tr. 10859 et seq.), 2/ was covered by a protective order entered in the Brown and Root litigation until May 30, 1985. On the first day of the I
- Phase II hearing, July 11, 1985, CCANP suggested that the Report be
! produced to the Board and parties. Tr. 11268-69. The Board did not order j that the Report be produced, but left it to CCANP to bring matters in the
. Report relevant to the Phase II hearing to the Board's attention or to l file a motion for a new contention. Tr. 11270. The hearing continued for
} more than a month; when the record closed on August 14, 1985 (Tr. 15387),
i J
-1/ In a Memorandum and Order dated October 4,1985, the Board granted that portion of CCANP's motion that requested a 2-week extension for filing its proposed findings, i 2/ At that prehearing conference. the Board concluded that the report was not relevant to Phase II of this proceeding. CCANP Motion at 2, citing Tr. 10862.
l*
j ,
i CCANP had not been heard from. Forty-seven days after the record closed, 4
l on the day the Applicants' proposed findings were filed, CCANP filed its 1
motion. As it relates to the SLI Report, CCANP requests that the Board order l
that the report be prodcued to the Board and parties; that the record be
. reopened to admit the Report; that the Board admit a new contention asserting !
that the failure of HL&P to provide the report to the Licensing Board {
]
constitutes a violation of the McGuire Rule and reflects adversely on the
]
i character and competence of the Applicants; and that the Board allow 1
- discovery on the handling of the Report as it relates to CCANP's j contention. The Staff addresses each aspect of the Motion in turn.
A. Motion for Board-Ordered Production l In its October 10, 1985 Response to CCANP's Motion. HL&P provided j the Board and certain parties (including CCANP) with a copy of the SLI Report. This portion of CCANP's Motion is therefore moot. l 1 i B. Motion to Reopen the Record j CCANP moves that the record be reopened to admit the SLI Report.
l Motion at 17-18. This is not the first time a motion to reopen the record has been filed in this case. See, g , LBP-85-19, 21 NRC 1707, i 1720 (June 18, 1985); LBP-84-13, 19 NRC 659, 715-21 (March 14, 1984). As
) the Board pointed out in LBP-85-19, the proponent of a motion to reopen the record bears a heavy burden. 21 NRC at 1720. The standard applied i
to such motions is well-settled; a motion must be timely, it must address a significant safety (or environmental) issue, and it must demonstrate j that a different result might have been reached had the newly proffered 4
l f
i
~4-l.
1 i
material been considered initially. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), ALAB-774, 19 NRC 1350, 1355 (1984), citing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-598, 11 NRC 876, 879 (198.0).
In its Motion CCANP advances the novel argument that the third l i
standard (whether a different result might be reached) does not apply if no decision had yet been issued. Motion at 17-18. The Licensing Board in its Partial Initial Decision, in responding to an August 8,1983 motion to reopen the record filed by CCANP, made clear that the third i standard does apply before a decision is issued:
1
- . . . where the record of a proceeding (or at least of a i major phase thereof) is closed, the information sought
, to be included in the record must be shown to be material and significant -- i.e., to have at least the
! potential for altering a result which might otherwise be
! reached. Id. To meet this standard, the proponent must I
offer new and significant factual information relating to the issue in question. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2),
i ALAB-644, 13 NRC 903, 994-95 (1981).
i LBP-84-13, supra, 19 NRC at 716 (footnote omitted). 3I -
i In terms of timeliness, CCANP fails to explain why this motion could 2
not have been filed sooner. The protective order was lifted on May 30, ,
1985; presumably access to the document could then have been had at the Matagorda County Courthouse. It is also unclear whether CCANP ever tried j to procure a copy of the Report from the Applicants. All that appears I
! 3/ Interestingly enough, CCANP in its August 8, 1983 Motion (at page 5)
! correctly recognized that the new information must have the potential to affect the decision if no decision has yet been i reached.
I 1
r
~ _. ,_--._ _ , -.~ --- ... - - _ - - ,. _ , _ .-,.. .
from the Motion is that CCANP attempted to get a copy from the City of Austin and was only belatedly successful. See Motion at 3, 18.
i I
- Particularly with a hearing rapidly approaching (the hearing started 42 days after the protective order was lifted), it was incumbent upon CCANP to take diligent steps to procure a copy of the Report if it wished to pursue the matter. CCANP in its Motion has not carried its burden of I
demonstrating that such diligence was taken.
While the Staff does not challenge the significance of the issues
]
litigated in Phase II, CCANP has utterly failed to demonstrate that acmission of the Report would likely affect the Board's decision. The
] primary i:, sue at Phase II was not whether the Quadrex Report accurately depicted Brown and Root's design program, but whether the Repcrt should have been reported to the NRC. CCANP asserts generally that the SRI Report tends to support the findings of the Quadrex Report. CCANP does not make any attempt to tie this assertion into the issue of reportability of Quadrex or to link the SLI Report to any portion of the
! record developed at hearing. In this regard, it also bears mention that 1
i the SLI Report was prepared more than three years after the Quadrex l Report and (judging from the letter cited at page 4 of CCANP's Motion) was ,
based in part on a number of documents generated after the Quadrex Report was issued. All that can be ascertained from CCANP's Motion is that the SLI Report found deficiencies in Brown and Root's design and engineering performance. CCANP leaves us to guess how this might affect at all the Board's decision on the reporting of the Quadrex Report; CCANP has clearly
! not carried its burden of den.onstrating that admission of the SLI Report i
j would likely affect the decision. Inasmuch as CCANP has failed to show that l
l r
t its motion to reopen the record is either timely or likely to affect the Board's decision, that portion of CCANP's Motion should be rejected.
1 1
C. Motion for New Contention i CCANP's Motion for a new contention asserts that the SLI Report was relevant to Phase II issues and therefore should have been submitted to j the Board pursuant to the McGuire doctrine. Motion at 19-20. CCANP fails, however, to address the standards for late-filed contentions in its filing, and CCANP further fails to provide a sufficient basis to support the contention.
There is no question that a contention filed this late in the process must meet the requirements for late-filed contentions contained in
< 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a). Duke Power Company (Catawba Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 466-67 (1982), aff'd in pertinent part, i CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, (1983). The Burden is upon the proponent of a i contention to demonstrate those factors are met. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Plant Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981). For its part, CCANP has failed to even discuss the
! factors. The five factors specified in Section 2.714 are good cause for 1
{ failure to file on time; the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interests might be protected; the extent to which
, petitioner's participation might assist in developing a sound record; the j extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing I
parties; and the extent to which the proceeding would be broadened or delayed.
i I
The timeliness factor is of critical importance. See, e.g.,
Duke Power Company (Perkins Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC l 460, 462 (1977) ("where no good excuse is tendered for the tardiness, the +
petitioner's demonstration on the other factors must be particularly I a strong"). Intervenors are under an obligation to file contentions as soon as possible. Catawba, supra, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC at 1048. As noted i earlier, CCANP has not demonstrated that it acted diligently in attempting to gain access to the SLI Report after May 30, 1985. Four months transpired between the lifting of the protective order and
]
the filing of the contention. Particularly given the circumstances of this proceeding, with Phase II hearings approaching (and since 1
completed), CCANP has not shown that it filed this Phase II-related contention in a timely manner.
Given the stage of the Phase !! proceeding, with the record closed
- and the parties heavily involved in the preparation of findings, it is l axiomatic that admission of a new contention on Phase II issues would l broaden and delay this proceeding.
Even if one assumes that the other factors lie in CCANP's favor (and i
- CCANP has made no such demonstration on any of them, including how its i
! participation might assist in developing a sound record), the untimeliness and delay attendant in accepting a contention at this stage f
- of the proceeding militate against admission of the contention.
Beyond its untimeliness, the contention is completely without basis, i As noted earlier, CCANP has made no real attempt to demonstrate that the l SLI Report is tied to any issues accepted for litigation during Phase 11 t or conflicts with any part of the Phase II record. Under the
i
-e. ,
j circumstances, there is no basis provided in CCANP's Motion for the !
assertion that the failure to submit the SLI Report to the Board violates
- the McGuire doctrine.
i CCANP's Motion for new contention does not meet the standards in i
Section 2.714(a) for admission of untimely contentions and the proposed contention is without basis. The proposed contention should be rejected.
i
- D. Discovery J
l CCANP nks for discovery in conjunction with its McGuire-related j 1
contention. Motion at 21. If the contention is admitted, such discovery ,
- might be appropriate. It is clear, however, that in the absence of an admitted contention the discovery is inappropriate. See 10 CFR 52.740(b)(1) (disco"ery shall relate only to matters in controversy in i the proceeding); Catawba, supra, ALAB-687,16 NRC at 467, n.12 ;
l (" discovery on the subject matter of a contention [can] be obtained only after the contention [has] been admitted to the proceeding"). If the Board finds that the contention should not be admitted (see Section C, s_upra), the request for discovery must be denied.
II. THE JORDAN DIARY l The " Jordan Diary" (as appended to CCANP's Motion) is a handwritten ,
document containing various entries dated from June 26, 1981 to December 16, 1981. Presumably, this compendium was compiled by Mr. Don Jordan, ;
l Chairman of HL&P and a witness at the Phase II hearing. According to 1
i CCANP (citing LBP-85-19), the diary should have been turned over to that i
party during discovery. Motion at 14. CCANP asks that the record be f
t
---m____.--- - . , . .~ --...-,_m-, .
--,v-- -.m .m. _ ,,%.-m.,.~ ,r- y- ---,--y,,,- -- ..,_ ,_, _ - - - - ,,,-----,,o ,, - , . - , - - -
i i
reopened to admit the document and that CCANP be allowed discovery on the
- development and handling of the document.
l The Staff agrees that the document should have been provided to i CCANP during discovery. The Staff also does not challenge CCANP's <
timeliness in raising the issue. Under certain circumstances, the failure to turn over such a document could lead to either discovery or i
examination of the author of the document. In this case, however, the Staff does not see how HL&P's failure to produce the document has prejudiced CCANP in any way.
- As noted in Section I.B., supra, an evidentiary record can be i reopened only for significant new information. CCANP claims the document calls into question testimony concerning the role of one of HL&P's j counsel, Mr. Jack Newman, in the removal of Brown and Root from the South 1
- Texas Project. Motion at 14-16. As support for this proposition, CCANP ,
t
- cites the document as identifying Mr. Newman as a member of a team (along 1 '
f.i with Messrs. Oprea and Goldberg) that would review resumes and interview i
I individuals from various companies being considered for replacement of i
! Brown and Root. The diary does not contain much detail; the entire entry !
l cited by CCANP reads as follows: l
! Oprea and Goldberg. All responses from Westinghouse,
- S&W, Ebasco, and Bechtel were received in time. ,
! Discussed follow up evaluation. Determined that :
specific site discussions with each responsive bid would I be necessary. Each meeting would last at least 2 days j and would include specific review of resumes and l
} interviewing individuals proposed for the job. HL&P '
i team would be composed of Oprea, Goldberg, & Jack i Newman. !
I See CCANP Motion at 15. CCANP goes on to assert that this passage calls ;
into question testimony from HL&P witnesses to the effect that HL&P's !
i !
I !
i
4 decision-making team in the removal of Brown and Root consisted only of Messrs. Jordan, Goldberg, and Oprea. M.
Leaving aside the issue of its relevance, the question of Mr. Newman's role in the replacement of Brown and Root was examined at the hearing in some detail. Mr. Goldberg testified that Mr. Newman was involved in the replacerrent of Brown and Root to the extent of providing input on licensing isseas and and various contractual matters. Tr. 12464-65; 12615. As CCANP -
l concedes in its Motion (at 15), Mr. Jordan similarly testified that Mr. Newman provided assistance in the areas of " contract tems" and " regulatory advice".
Tr. 11982. Given the testimony of Messrs. Jordan and Goldberg, the Jordan Diary appears to neither contradict nor add anything to the existing record.
Although the document should have been provided to CCANP during discovery, its admission would not be likely to alter the Board's decision in any way.
Accordingly, the Staff opposes the motion to reopen the record to admit the Jordan Diary.
!!!. CONCLUSION For the reasons presented above, the Staff submits that CCANP's Motion to reopen the record, for admission of a new contention, and for related relief, should be denied. ,
Respectfully submitted.
2, -, e
/p W/ as Q , L, .
Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October,1985
1 I '
\'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
l In the Matter of '
l
! HOUSTON l!GHTING AND POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-498 l
- E A1 50-499 l l (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) ) !
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR i PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, REOPENING THE RECORD ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTION, l AND DISCOVERY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the j following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as t l indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory i
- Comission's internal mail system, this 15th day of October,1985.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- i Administrative Judge Brian Berwick, Esq. !
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station ,
Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 l l Dr. James C. Lamb !!! .
1 Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esq. l l 313 Woodhaven Road Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. :
{
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1615 L Street, N.W. (
Washington, DC 20036 i Mr. Frederick J. Shon l Administrative Judge ;
j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mrs. Peggy Buchorn l J Panel Executive Director i i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Citizens for Equitable Utilities, .
! Washington, DC 20555 Inc. [
] Route 1, Box 1684 :
! Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq. Brazoria,TX 77442 l i Baker at.d Botts t One Shell Plaza
) Houston, TX 77002 i l
1 l
4
Mr. Lanny Sinkin Citizens Concerned About ,
William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Nuclear Power, Inc.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan 3022 Porter St., N.W. #304 Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. 20009 Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Barbara A. Miller Panel
- Pat Coy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Washington, DC 20555 Power 5106 Casa Oro Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Antonio, TX 78233 Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. David Prestemon* Washington, DC 20555
- Legal Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Ray Goldstein, Esq.
Board Panel Gray, Allison & Becker U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1001 Vaughn Bldg.
Washingten, D.C. 20555 807 Brazos Austin, TX 78701
.. Docketing and Service Section*
Of fice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 1
/ / /;I)
Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff i
f i i
i