|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196J3291999-06-28028 June 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Standards ML20206M7291999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083, Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Licensee of Listed Plants in Total Agreement with Comments Provided to NRC by NEI HL-5717, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes, Tests & Experiments.Util in Total Agreement with NEI Comments to Be Provided to NRC1998-12-18018 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes, Tests & Experiments.Util in Total Agreement with NEI Comments to Be Provided to NRC HL-5715, Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Nuclear Power Plants.Util Is in Total Agreement with NEI Comments1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Nuclear Power Plants.Util Is in Total Agreement with NEI Comments HL-5702, Comment Supporting NEI Comments Totally on Proposed Draft RG DG-4005, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Ols1998-10-23023 October 1998 Comment Supporting NEI Comments Totally on Proposed Draft RG DG-4005, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Ols HL-5695, Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Comments on 10CFR50.55(a) Pr, Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers1998-10-13013 October 1998 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Comments on 10CFR50.55(a) Pr, Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers HL-5690, Comment on Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial Nuclear Plants. Util in Total Agreement with NEI Comments Provided to NRC1998-10-0505 October 1998 Comment on Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial Nuclear Plants. Util in Total Agreement with NEI Comments Provided to NRC HL-5983, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors. Snoc in Total Agreement with NEI Comments,To Be Provided to Nrc.Requests That NRC Provide Guidance to Application of NUREG-1022,rev 1 as Listed1998-09-21021 September 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors. Snoc in Total Agreement with NEI Comments,To Be Provided to Nrc.Requests That NRC Provide Guidance to Application of NUREG-1022,rev 1 as Listed ML20153B2391998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Ki as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Endorses NEI Comments HL-5682, Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents, & Endorsing Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Institute1998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents, & Endorsing Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Institute HL-5602, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds HL-5586, Comment on Proposed Generic Ltr, Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps1998-03-0404 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Generic Ltr, Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps HL-5582, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-5008, Reporting of Safeguards Events1998-02-27027 February 1998 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-5008, Reporting of Safeguards Events HL-5564, Comment on Draft NUREG 1555, Updated Environ Standard Review Plan1998-01-30030 January 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG 1555, Updated Environ Standard Review Plan HL-5554, Comment Supporting NEI Comments on PRM 50-63A by P Crane Recommending Emergency Planning Standard for Protective Actions Be Changed to Require Explicit Consideration of Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public1998-01-15015 January 1998 Comment Supporting NEI Comments on PRM 50-63A by P Crane Recommending Emergency Planning Standard for Protective Actions Be Changed to Require Explicit Consideration of Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public HL-5546, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule & Direct Final Rule on 10CFR50.68 & 10CFR70.24, Criticality Accident Requirements1997-12-31031 December 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule & Direct Final Rule on 10CFR50.68 & 10CFR70.24, Criticality Accident Requirements HL-5529, Comment Opposing Rule 10CFR50 Re Codes & Standards,Ieee National Consensus Standard1997-12-0101 December 1997 Comment Opposing Rule 10CFR50 Re Codes & Standards,Ieee National Consensus Standard ML20199J0031997-11-24024 November 1997 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Financial Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft RG 1060 HL-5424, Comment on NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Encourages NRC Not to Abandon 30 Yrs of Effective Implementation of 10CFR.50.59 for New Positions1997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment on NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Encourages NRC Not to Abandon 30 Yrs of Effective Implementation of 10CFR.50.59 for New Positions ML20148N0741997-06-19019 June 1997 Comment on Proposed Suppl to Bulletin 96-001 Re Control Rod Insertion Problems.Util in Complete Agreement That Incomplete Rcca Insertion Not Acceptable HL-5407, Comment Opposing NRC Proposed Strategies to Address Licensees Need to Establish & Maintain safety-conscious Work Environ1997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing NRC Proposed Strategies to Address Licensees Need to Establish & Maintain safety-conscious Work Environ ML20137C2581997-03-18018 March 1997 Summary of Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 of Mb Hobby & AL Mosbaugh, ML20137C4261997-03-18018 March 1997 Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 Re Petition Re Allegation of Illegal Transfer of OLs to Southern Nuclear Operating Co.Petitions Filed by Mb Hobby & AL Mosbaugh Denied HL-5268, Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1047, Std Format & Content for Applications to Renew NPP Ols1996-11-27027 November 1996 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1047, Std Format & Content for Applications to Renew NPP Ols ML20133H1131996-11-25025 November 1996 Petition for Enforcement,Per 10CFR2.206,to Revoke Northeast Utils Operating Licenses for CT Nuclear Power Stations Due to Chronic,Systemic Mismanagement Resulting in Significant Violations of NRC Safety Regulations ML20129J5481996-10-30030 October 1996 Order.* Extends Time within Which Commission May Take Sua Sponte Review of Memorandum & Order LBP-96-16 to 961129. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961030 ML20129K4291996-10-0202 October 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR25 & 95, Access to & Protection of Classified Info HL-5247, Comment on Proposed Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations1996-10-0101 October 1996 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20128K2791996-09-30030 September 1996 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Take Sua Sponte Review of Memo & Order LBP-96-16 Extended Until 961030. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 960930 ML20116J8921996-08-0202 August 1996 Withdrawal of AL Mosbaugh.* AL Mosbaugh Voluntarily Withdraws Intervention,Opposition & Contention in Proceedings.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20116J8551996-08-0202 August 1996 Joint Notice of Termination.* AL Mosbaugh Voluntarily Withdrew Intervention,Opposition & Contentions in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20116J8431996-08-0202 August 1996 Intervenor Response to Georgia Power Motion for Reconsideration.* Intervenor Supports Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20116N5881996-07-31031 July 1996 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR26, Mods to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements. Supports NEI Comments ML20116A4931996-07-15015 July 1996 Georgia Power Company Motion for Reconsideration of 960628 Memorandum & Order Or,In Alternative,For Certification.* Gpc Requests That Board Not Require Submittal or Approval of Settlement Between Gpc & Mosbaugh.W/Certificate of Svc ML20115H2671996-07-0808 July 1996 Comment Supporting Final Rule 10CFR51, Environ Review of Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses HL-5195, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors1996-06-24024 June 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors ML20114E6491996-06-20020 June 1996 Joint Motion to Defer Issuance of Initial Decision.* Requests That ASLB Defer Issuance of Decision in Proceeding Until 960920,in Order to Allow Gpc & Mosbaugh to Reach Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc IA-95-211, Transcript of 920507 Interview of Mc Wilkins in Waynesboro, Ga.Pp 1-391996-05-0707 May 1996 Transcript of 920507 Interview of Mc Wilkins in Waynesboro, Ga.Pp 1-39 ML20129H7151996-05-0707 May 1996 Transcript of 920507 Interview of Mc Wilkins in Waynesboro, Ga.Pp 1-39 HL-5103, Comment Supporting NEI Comments on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Planning Std for Protective Actions for General Public Includes Stockpile or Predistribution of Ki for Prophylactic Use1996-02-0606 February 1996 Comment Supporting NEI Comments on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Planning Std for Protective Actions for General Public Includes Stockpile or Predistribution of Ki for Prophylactic Use ML20096A4911995-12-22022 December 1995 Georgia Power Co Reply to Intervenor & NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20095D9821995-12-12012 December 1995 Georgia Power Co Motion to Correct Record of Exhibits of Diesel Generator Reporting Issues Allegation Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20095D9771995-12-0808 December 1995 Comment on Proposed Generic Ltr Boraflex Degradation in Spent Fuel Pool Starage Racks. Request for Licensees to Demonstrate Subcriticality Margin in Unborated Water,Seems Inconsistent W/Stated Benefit of Borated Water ML20094S2751995-11-30030 November 1995 Intervenor Final Statement of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Board Finds That Util & Applicant Failed to Meet Burden of Proof Re Ultimate Issue of Character,Competence & Integrity. W/Svc List ML20094S2411995-11-22022 November 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenors Motion for Continuance.* Intervenor Motion Unjustified & Prejudicial & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094S2931995-11-21021 November 1995 Intervenor Motion for Continuance for Good Cause.* Requests Deadline for Filing Post Hearing Brief Be Extended Until 951130.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094K1161995-11-0909 November 1995 Intervenor Motion to Admit Supplementary Exhibits.* Moves That Naslp Admit Encl Documents Into Evidence for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094J9301995-11-0606 November 1995 Georgia Power Company Motion to Correct Record of Diesel Generator Reporting Issues Allegation Hearing.* Moves Licensing Board to Order That Corrections Be Made to Transcript.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094J9281995-11-0606 November 1995 Gap Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Diesel Generator Reporting Issues.* Findings of Fact & Conclusion Accepted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9201995-11-0101 November 1995 Affidavit of Ck Mccoy to Correct Info Contained in Intervenor Exhibit II-97,which Consists of Portions of Deposition in a Mosbaugh Complaint Against Gap 1999-06-28
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20133H1131996-11-25025 November 1996 Petition for Enforcement,Per 10CFR2.206,to Revoke Northeast Utils Operating Licenses for CT Nuclear Power Stations Due to Chronic,Systemic Mismanagement Resulting in Significant Violations of NRC Safety Regulations ML20116J8431996-08-0202 August 1996 Intervenor Response to Georgia Power Motion for Reconsideration.* Intervenor Supports Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20116A4931996-07-15015 July 1996 Georgia Power Company Motion for Reconsideration of 960628 Memorandum & Order Or,In Alternative,For Certification.* Gpc Requests That Board Not Require Submittal or Approval of Settlement Between Gpc & Mosbaugh.W/Certificate of Svc ML20114E6491996-06-20020 June 1996 Joint Motion to Defer Issuance of Initial Decision.* Requests That ASLB Defer Issuance of Decision in Proceeding Until 960920,in Order to Allow Gpc & Mosbaugh to Reach Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095D9821995-12-12012 December 1995 Georgia Power Co Motion to Correct Record of Exhibits of Diesel Generator Reporting Issues Allegation Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20094S2411995-11-22022 November 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenors Motion for Continuance.* Intervenor Motion Unjustified & Prejudicial & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094S2931995-11-21021 November 1995 Intervenor Motion for Continuance for Good Cause.* Requests Deadline for Filing Post Hearing Brief Be Extended Until 951130.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094K1161995-11-0909 November 1995 Intervenor Motion to Admit Supplementary Exhibits.* Moves That Naslp Admit Encl Documents Into Evidence for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20094J9301995-11-0606 November 1995 Georgia Power Company Motion to Correct Record of Diesel Generator Reporting Issues Allegation Hearing.* Moves Licensing Board to Order That Corrections Be Made to Transcript.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093F9171995-10-13013 October 1995 Georgia Power Co Position on Effect of DOL Case 90 ERA-30.* Recommends Board Should Refrain from Considering or Giving Any Effect to Secretary of Labor Determination in 90 EAR-30. W/Certificate of Svc ML20093F9441995-10-13013 October 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenor Motion to Conduct Discovery Re Dew Point Instruments.* Recommends That Intervenor Motion to Conduct Discovery Re Dew Point Instruments Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20093F8681995-10-13013 October 1995 Intervenor Response to Board Memorandum & Order (Effect of DOL Case 90-ERA-30).* Bloomburg & Comanche Peak Precedents Demonstrate Applicability of Issue Preclusion to Matl Fact Containing to Hobby Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20093F9901995-10-12012 October 1995 Ga Power Company Response to Intervenor Motion to Admit Certain Admissions of Ga Power.* Intervenor Motion to Admit Certain Admissions of Ga Power,Dtd 951006,should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093G1081995-10-12012 October 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenors Motion to Conduct Further Discovery Against NRC Staff.* Motion to Conduct Further Discovery Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20093F9751995-10-12012 October 1995 Ga Power Company Response to Intervenors Motion to Admit Exhibit II-247 (Transcript of Tape 99B).* Intervenor Motion to Admit Intervenor Exhibit II-247 Into Evidence Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093F9541995-10-12012 October 1995 Ga Power Company Response to Intervenor Motion to Strike Affidavit of H Handfinger.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20093B9301995-10-0606 October 1995 Intervenor Motion to Admit Certain Admissions of Georgia Power.* Intervenor Requests That Admission Responses & Corresponding OI Paragraphs Listed Be Admitted Into Record. W/Certificate of Svc ML20093B8901995-10-0606 October 1995 Intervenor Motion to Conduct Discovery Re Dew Point Instruments.* Intervenor Requests to Conduct Addl Discovery & to Obtain Further Relief.W/Certificate of Svc ML17311B3631995-10-0505 October 1995 Intervenor Motion to Admit Exhibit II-247 (Transcript of Tape 99B).* Intervenor Requests That Intervenor Exhibit II-247 Be Admitted Into Evidence.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093B7101995-10-0505 October 1995 Intervenor Motion to Complete Discovery Against NRC Staff Expert Witness (Mgt Panel).* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093B8291995-10-0505 October 1995 Intervenor Motion to Strike Affidavit of H Handfinger.* Affidavit of H Handfinger Should Be Stricken,In Entirety, from Record of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20098B7981995-10-0303 October 1995 Georgia Power Company Supplemental Response to Intervenor Addl Discovery Request Dtd 950905.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20098B4671995-10-0202 October 1995 Intervenor Request for Continuance to File Response to Georgia Power Co Petition for Review.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20098B4691995-10-0202 October 1995 Intervenor Opposition to Georgia Power Company Petition for Review of Order to Produce Attorney Interview Notes.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20092M6071995-09-26026 September 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenor Addl Discovery Request Dtd 950905.* Request Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092H6571995-09-11011 September 1995 Georgia Power Company Opposition to Intervenor Motion to Strike Testimony of Hill & Ward & to Conduct Addl Discovery.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20092H6771995-09-11011 September 1995 Ga Power Company Motion for Stay of Licensing Board Order Requiring Production of Attorney Notes of Privileged Communications.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20092A4821995-09-0505 September 1995 Intervenor Motion to Strike Expert Testimony of Hill & Ward & to Conduct Addl Discovery.* Intervenor Requests That Hill & Ward Testimony Be Stricken & Gap File Expedited Responses to Requested Discovery.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091S3861995-08-22022 August 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenor Motion to Admit Certain Admissions & Sections of OI Rept Into Evidence.* Georgia Power Neither Admit Nor Deny Admissions.W/ Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087K2911995-08-15015 August 1995 Response to Licensee Motion for Reconsideration Re Notes of E Dixon Noted & Brief on Attorney Client Privilege.* Requests That Board Order Immediate Production of Interview Notes.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087K2801995-08-14014 August 1995 Intervenor Response to Georgia Power Company Motion to Exclude Admission of OI Conclusions.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087K4731995-08-0808 August 1995 Gap Opposition to Intervenor Supplemental Motion to Compel Interview Notes & Other Documents Known to Gap Counsel When Preparing Response to Nov.* Informs That Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087K4021995-08-0808 August 1995 Georgia Power Co Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re Request for Discovery Re E Dixon.* Believes That Board Should Deny Intervenor Motion.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087K3501995-08-0404 August 1995 Licensee Position on Admissibility of Staff Exhibits II-5 & II-10.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087A6961995-07-28028 July 1995 Georgia Power Company Motion to Exclude Admission of OI Conclusions.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087A6871995-07-28028 July 1995 Ga Power Company Motion for Issuance of Subpoena.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20087A5711995-07-24024 July 1995 Intervenors Supplemental Motion to Compel Interview Notes & Other Documents Known to Ga Power Company Counsel When Preparing Response to Nov.* Board Should Order Production of Notes of E Dixon.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086P7801995-07-17017 July 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenor Motion to Compel Production of Licensee Notes of Interview of Ester Dixon.* Intervenor Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086P5961995-07-10010 July 1995 Intervenor Motion to Clarify Record.* Requests Board to Clarify Record to Reflect That on 950517,exhibits Identified in List of Stipulated Exhibits,Were Received Into Evidence. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086H2271995-06-30030 June 1995 Intervenor Motion to Compel Production of Licensee Notes of Interview of Ester Dixon.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20085C8871995-05-29029 May 1995 Intervenor Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas of C Coursey,M Hobbs & RP Mcdonald.* Motion to Quash Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20084L2871995-05-24024 May 1995 Motion by Georgia Power Company Cl Coursey,Ml Hobbs & RP Mcdonald to Quash Subpoenas of C Coursey,Ml Hobbs & RR Mcdonald.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20083R0291995-05-18018 May 1995 Georgia Power Company Brief on Inadmissibility of OI Rept or in Alternative Motion for Certification to Commission.* Advises That Exhibits Should Not Be Admitted Into Evidence in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20083C8421995-05-12012 May 1995 Intervenor Response to Util Motion for Order Preserving Licensing Board Jurisdiction.* Intervenor Requests That Commission Deny Util Motion for Order Preserving Licensing Board Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20083C8461995-05-10010 May 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Board Question Re 900410 IIT Questions.* Licensing Board Requests That Util Advise Board of Response to a Chaffee 900410 Request for Calcon Sensor Data.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20083C8241995-05-0909 May 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Board Question Re Diesel Testing Transparency.* Util Believes That Cash Did Not Include Start 128-131 Since Starts Were Not Included on Typed List.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20083L7781995-05-0909 May 1995 Georgia Power Co Response to Board Question Re Definition of Successful Start.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20083L7251995-05-0707 May 1995 Intervenor'S Response to Gpc Motion to Strike Partially Intervenor'S Prefiled Testimony.* Requests That Gpc Motion to Strike Partially Intervenor'S Prefiled Testimony Be Overruled in Entirety.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20083K2971995-05-0202 May 1995 Intervenor Motion for Enlargement of Time.* Requests Enlargement of Time to Respond to Georgia Power Co Motion to Strike Partially Prefiled Testimony.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20082T3871995-04-27027 April 1995 Georgia Power Co Motion for Order Preserving Licensing Board Jurisdiction.* Requests That Commission Grant Relief Request.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List 1996-08-02
[Table view] |
Text
. _ . _ _- _- -
I
/<~>. .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C s
?
NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION 5E 1 '
\
QC ed'~ s .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ?['
.N N
In the Matter of ) ~~_ _J '
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-424 OL
) 50-425 OL Vogtle Electric Generating )
. Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
i MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 8 RE: VOGTLE QUALITY ASSURANCE)
On October 3, 1985 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dismissed Joint Intervenors, Campaign for Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, challenging the adequacy of Applicant's (Georgia Power Company, et al.) Quality Assurance i
Program for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ("Vogtle")
- contained in Contention 8.
! Joint Intervenors request reconsideration of the Board's i
dismissal order; and/or a continuance of the Board's ruling I
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c) to permit proper affidavits to be prepared in response to Applicant's Motion for Summary j
Disposition.
Intervenors are mindful of the Commission's ruling that a denial of a motion for summary disposition is interlocutory and
- therefore not appealable, unless such a denial results in dis-missal of an intervenor's sole contention. Louisiana Power &
Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3),
8511010504 851028 .
PDR o
ADOCK 05000424 PDR \/m (c') U/ N CP)
d I
ALAB-220, 8 AEC 93 (1974). Waterford, cited in Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-641, 13 NRC 550, 551 (1981). Since at this time there is one' remaining contention Intervenors do not seek i
' directed certification on this issue, but reserve the right to raise the issues discussed below on appeal.
! l l
I i I. Background t
Contention 8 in its present form was admitted into the operating license pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Joint Inter"enors' Objection to Order of September 5, 1984 and other Matters, LBP-84-35, 20 NRC 887, 900-02) dated November 5, 1984.
The contention, as admitted, reads:
Applicants have not and will not implement a Quality Assurance program for Plant Vogtle for welding, for properly documenting the placement of concrete, for adequately testing concrete, for the preparation of correct concrete quality test records, for procuring material and equipment j that meet applicable standards, for protecting equipment and for taking corrective action as required, so as to i adequately provide for the safe functioning of diverse structures, systems and components, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, such that reasonable assurance exists that the operation of the facility will not endanger the public health and safety.
Discovery was conducted pursuant to a stipulated schedule.
! Prior to the conclusion of discovery Applicant filed a
{ motion for sammary disposition of the contention pursuant to 10 #
i l C.F.R. 2.749. The Joint Intervenors opposed the motion on July l
1 31, 1985 (Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition i of Intervenors Contention 8).
The Staff supported the Applicant's motion. (See NRC Staff i
e Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 8 (Quality Assurance), August 5, 1985).
The Board granted Applicant's motion on October 3, 1985.
The Board, on October 18, 1985, granted Intervenors' request for a one week extension to submit this request for reconsideration until October 28, 1985. (Order, October 18, 1985)
II. Applicable Law The applicable law on summary disposition has been argued extensively in numerous filings in this proceeding.
Intervanors do not generally quarrel with the Board's recitation of the law on summary disposition as far as it goes.
However, an analysis of the case law defining the use of summary disposition and the facts presented by this question demonstrates that Joint Intervenors responded to the initial Motion for Summary Judgment in a manner consistent with the rules and case
< law and that a reconsideration of Intervenors' position will demonstrate that hearings on contention 8 must be held.
III. There Remain Genuine Issues of Fact In Controversy Which The Board Has Not i Recognized In Its October 3 Decision.
The basis of Intervenors' opposition was that the material facts originally put into controversy through Contention 8 remain
- in controversy. Intervenor did not submit evidence in the form j
of affidavits in response to the motion for summary judgment because they believed on the basis of the record that the Applicant had not presented evidence which removed the question of the implementation of the quality assurance program as a
!, l i
.o i
! i
! genuine issue of material fact. ,
i Further, the Board ignored the Intervenors' request for an opportunity to present contradictory testimony evidence from l l former members of the workforce that the statements offered by l Applicant regarding the successful implementation of the quality ;
J assurance program are not accurate. ,
Finally, the Board did not consider the Intervenors'
- argument that the results of the Readiness Review Program cannot be relied upon for purposes of a summary disposition motion y unless the Applicant seeks a special exemption pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758.
Inte:'enors resubmit their request that the Board allow Intervenors to present their case by contradicting the affidavits submitted in support of the Motion for Summary Disposition at a f
- hearing. It is well settled NRC law that intervenors may make 1
! their case through cross-examination of Applicant's witnesses. [
j Intervenors are convinced that given the opportunity to t conduct cross-examination on these matters, or at a minimum given i
, a continuance of time to submit affidavits in opposition to i ,
l Applicant's assertiens, genuine issues of material fact will j
remain for trial. ;
l A. The Board should Not Have considered ;
- Evidence Or Assurance Gained From The ,
j Readiness Review Program To Determine l Whether or Not The QA Program Was s l Implemented In A Manner To Insure The !
j Public Health And Safety Is Protected; 1 If It Cor.sidered The Evidence At All It ,
Supports Ir.tervenors Argument That The QA Prograa Was Not Properly Implemented. l
! t
4 The Board found that the facts alleged by Applicant "make it clear that the QAP not only meets the formal requirements of Appendix B but also functions in accordance with the intent of Appendix B." (p. 6) The 3 card states:
In addition, Applicants state that they have initiated a Readiness Review Program (RRP) for the purpose of gaining added assurance of the operational readiness of the VEGP.
The motivation for and description of the RRP are discussed by one of the affiants. The RRP was undertaken in consonance with generic considerations of the NRC regarding ways to improve the efficacy of QA efforts throughout the nuclear industry. The RRP is not a substitute for Applicants' QAP but is an overlay to that effort serving to increase the confidence of management in the operational readiness of the VEGP.
The Board has been misled about the submitted evidence.
The statement referred to by the Board is the affidavit of W.C. Ramsey, Attachment 7. It states, as does the Applicant's motion, that the RRP is only to " gain added assurances of the operational readiness of Vogtle ..." (Affidavit, at 2), and also identifies six objectives for the RRP (Affidavit, at 5-6) which
! is described as a management system. (Id.)
However, during the July 26, 1985 Commission meeting on the 1
l Operational Readiness Review Program for Georgia Power (Vogtle)
Mr. R.W. Scherer of Georgia Power Company stated in response to questioning by Chairman Palladino that the purpose of the Readiness Review Program is If in fact we can, by doing this, demonstrate clearly that we have lived up to our commitment, therefore we can license this plant and put it into operation in a timely fashion, we I will save our customers millions of dollars.
(Hearing Transcript, p. 50)
That observation is confirmed by Commissioner Bernthal that the RRP demonstrates a way to " find your way through the
'I
i l
- licensing maze, one hopes relatively unscathed." (Id., p. 67)
Notwithstanding all the hopes for the success of the Readinese Review Program concept in the industry the fact remains I
i that, at least as to Plant Vogtle, it is improper for the Board ,
to consider any evidence submitted from the program to establish I
i successful implementation of the 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B
) regulatory requirements.
1 i The NRC Staff itself cautioned the Applicant about its optimism toward prejudging the results of the implementation of the RRP.
J j Mr. Nelson Grace, Region II Administrator, said
{
So we are sold on the concept, and we reserve judgment
- as to whether it's going to be applied adequately and
! correctly and thoroughly and in a timely manner at Georgia Power. We don't prejudge the conclusion.
If it's done correctly and done well, we feel confident that we're going to sava resources in the long run. It's i coing to make everybody's job easier.
1 j But it is a pilot program. The work is cut out for j them at Georgia Power. I think they ought to be commended j for taking the initiative, and they are off to a good start, although they have already doubled their estimate from 75
! man-years to 150 man-years. It's still in the evolutionary 4
stage, and the hope is that it will be implemented
- correctly, and we will all benefit from it. But we are not prejudging the outcome. We don't accept programs in lieu of
( results. We're looking for results ultimately. (emphasis l added)
(Mearing Transcript, pp. 72-73) i The RRP was designed to discover problems at Vogtle
~
(Transcript, at 27) and it did that. That is a good thing for
) Applicant, sad for the public. (Id.) Nonetheless, the fact that it did find the problems is an admission that, but for the RRP,
[ there were undiscovered and uncorrected hardware deficiencies at the plant which had escaped the original QA/QC program. Such a l
-7 -
)
finding prevents the Board from granting a summary judgment motion on quality assurance.
The fact is that Intervenors identified multiple deficiencies resulting during the construction of Vogtle. (See Statement of Material Facts, pp. 3-9). Assuming arguendo that all those deficiencies have been or will be corrected, there is still no reasonable assurance that all deficiencies have been identified.
Had there been evidence presented by Applicant to indicate i
that any breakdowns in the QA program had been identified, corrected, and specific deficiencies cared through the successful implementation of Vogtle's original QAP, then Intervenors would have had to produce affirmative evidence that some problems escaped detection in the QAP and therefore genuine issues still remained.
However, the Board in deciding the summary judgment motion must consider all evidence presented in deciding the motion, even evidence submitted by the movant, which indicates there is a question of a genuine issue of a material fact. Because Intervenor does not submit any evidence controverting dis-position, it does not follow that Applicant automatically prevails. The burden is on Applicant to offer proof of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comp., et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-754 (1977); Pennsylvania Power and Light Comp., et al. (Susquehana Steam Electric Station),
Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 (1981).
l
- -. = _ _ . .. . _
Intervenors submit that the results of the RRP are evidence that the QAP failed. Intervenors are not required to show at this juncture that they would prevail on the issues, only that there are genuine issues to be tried. American Manufacturing Mut. Ins. Comp. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, j Inc., 388 F.2d 272, 280 (2nd Cir. 1967).
In the denial of the Byron license the Appeals Board stated i
that "so long as legitimate uncertainty remained respecting whether the Byron facility has been properly built, the Licensing Board is obliged to withhold the green light for an operating license."
It will be difficult, if not impossible, should Applicant
! prevail on the other outstanding contention to state there was no legitimate uncertainty about the successful implementation of the QA/QC QAP. To the extent that such uncertainty is eliminated by reliance of the Board on the RRP the Applicant must submit the RRP to regulatory scrutiny equal to the QAP. To date it has not i
i done so.
B. Material Facts Remaining In Controversy The Board is apparently persuaded that, as a matter of law, Applicant is entitled to judgment here because it found no genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial.
Intervenor, of course, disagrees. There are two types of material facts which remain the subject of substantial dispute:
- 1) specific hardware deficiencies, and
- 2) undiscovered specific deficiencies to confirm a pervasive breakdown in the QA/QC program.
l As to the first category of material facts the Board correctly observed that Intervenors did not present evidence in their response to the motion for summary disposition to contest I
Applicant's representation.that the specific deficiencies have been corrected. Intervanors do not concede that Applicant's representations regarding their corrective actions are correct.
As to the second type of material fact, however, the potential for a pervasive breakdown, Intervenors did claim, pursuant to their rights under 10 C.F.R. 2.759(c) that if they were granted time to prepare for hearing that former workers and/or site employees would testify to the pervasive breakdown by demonstrating specific, uncorrected deficiencies.
However, it was not necessary for Intervenors to submit I worker affidavits when Applicant itself presented evidence that its program failed to detect safety significant deficiencies.
The Readiness Review Findings disclosed by Applicant have identified six findings which have generic implications for the
! QAP at Vogtle. Those problems are:
- 1) problems with retrievability of documentation;
- 2) weaknesses in initial test program procedures;
- 3) deficient controls associated with field changes;
- 4) weaknesses in certain design calculations;
- 5) problems in electrical cable separation controls; and i
- 6) problems with inspector certification records.
l They are the same types of generic problems which the Appeals Board observed raised a " legitimate question" at Byron about whether the inspectors examining safety related equipment at Byron had actually been competent to perform their assigned
l runctions. (Commonwealth Edison, Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-770, 20 (1984)
The findings by the RRP of generic problems raise lingering doubts and uncertainty about whether all construction defects of potential safety significance have been detected.
We invite the Board's attention to the instruction of the Appeals Board in Byron, at p. 21.
We find nothing in Callaway that suggests, let alone holds, that an operating license can issue despite the presence of a cloud overhanging the adequacy of safety-related facility construction. Further, we are totally satisfied that the record before the Licensing Board was insufficient to disperse the cloud here. To be sure, as will be discussed in the next section, before the record closed the applicant had embarked upon programs designed to remove the concern engendered by the faulty inue : tor certification procedurer. But neither the validity nor the results of those programs were (or, as a practical matter, could have been) explored in any depth at the hearing last summer.... Because the efficacy and outcome of the remedial programs are central to a finding of reasr'aable assurance of proper facility construction, the intervphors are plainly entitled to have their day in court price to a possible resolution of the quality assurance matter in the applicant's favor. (footnote omitted)
Since here the issue is the disposition of a matter without the Intervanor having any opportunity to present their case the Boardd need be even more mindful of examining the subtlety of the key genuine issue in controversy here -- that is, the successful implementation of QAP.
! Such an examination of the record as set forth in Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 453, n.4 (1980).
I
C. Intervenors Resubmit Their Request To Present Testimony Contradictory To The Information Submitted By Applicant From Former Members Of The Workforce.
Under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c) ... a presiding officer may refuse the application for summary decision or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or make such other order as is appropriate...." Joint Intervenors did not in the initial response submit an affidavit detailing the reasons that facts essential to justify the opposition to the motion for summary judgment could not be submitted by affidavit.
However, Intervenors did include in their initial response an explanation on why facts could not be presented by affidavits.
(Initial Response, at 5).
Intervenors formalize their request through this motion for reconsideration and attach the requisite explanatory affidavit.
The truth as stated in the affidavit is that the Joint Intervenors did not know the type of information now available to it. As Mr. Teper pointed out in his deposition, Intervenors had only received bits and pieces of information which raised questions about the QAP's successful implementation.
Should the Board grant this motion for reconsideration, Intervenors will submit under an appropriate protective order, if necessary, the affidavits of those individuals who have personal knowledge of the failure of Applicants to implement their quality assurance program and who agree to participate in these proceedings under the Rules of the Commission.
The workers, of course, have evidence of discreet, specific l deficiencies with their area of expertise; however, for the t
purposes of the requested hearing we only seek through these workers to demonstrate that the identified deficiencies, which slipped through the QAP undetected, provide substantial evidence that the QAP was not implemented according to the commitme ' --t Applicant and therefore raise legitimate doubt about awe y i:2,w* a as-built condition.
CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, Intervenwrs .espectfully request that the Board reconsider its decision to grant summary disposition on Contention 8, and set this matter for hearing. In the alternative Intervenors request that the Board grant,a continuance in order to provide time for the submission of affidavits of former plant workers with relevant evidence regarding the failure of Applicant's quality assurance program and specific, uncorrected, safety-related deficiencies.
Respectfully submitted, N %% 6 6-TIM JOHNSON Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 175 Trinity Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Georgians Against Nuclear Energy 1253 Lenox Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Representative for Joint Intervenors
l Assisting on this trief was Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, who is a law student at Antioch Law School BILLIE PIRNER GARDE 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dated: October 28, 1985 l
l
( . . . . . - _ _ . _ _ _.