|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217J9611999-10-22022 October 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply).* State 991021 Motion for Leave to File Reply to 991018 Pfs & Staff Responses Re Admission of late-filed,amend Contention Utah V Granted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991022 ML20217L8541999-10-21021 October 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to State of Utah Request for Admission of late- Filed Amended Utah Contention V.* NRC Staff Do Not Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20217E9691999-10-18018 October 1999 Applicant Response to State of Utah Request for Admission late-filed Amended Utah Contention V.* Recommends That State of Utah Request Should Be Denied as Untimely.With Certificate of Svc ML20217E9281999-10-18018 October 1999 NRC Staff Response to State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Utah Contention V.* Staff Submits That Contention V Should Be Rejected on Grounds That Contention Untimely Filed Without Good Cause.With Certificate of Svc ML20212M0201999-10-0707 October 1999 Order (Schedule for Responses to Request for Admission of late-filed,amended Contention).* Responses to Amended Utah Contention V Shall Be Filed on or Before 991018. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 991007 ML20217B6741999-10-0404 October 1999 State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Utah Contention V.* Amended Contention V Both Admissible & Meets Commission Standard for Late Filed Contentions & Should Be Admitted ML20217B6821999-10-0404 October 1999 Notice of Change of Address.* Submits Listed Address Change for C Nakahara ML20217B6861999-10-0404 October 1999 Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of Utah Amended Contention V.* Declaration of M Resnikoff Re Inadequacy of Table S-4 in 10CFR51 to Address Environ Impacts of Transporting Sf.With Certificate of Svc ML20217B6921999-10-0404 October 1999 Notice of Withdrawal.* Informs That DG Moquin No Longer Represents State of UT in Proceeding & Notice of Appearance Withdrawn Effectively Immediately ML20212B8271999-09-20020 September 1999 NRC Staff Correction to NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* No Affidavit Being Provided in Support of Legal Change.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212B8351999-09-20020 September 1999 Memorandum & Order (Summary disposition-related Rulings).* Applicant 990903 Motion for Reconsideration &/Or Clarification of LBP-99-35 Denied.With Certificate of Svc. Served on 990920 ML20212C1701999-09-20020 September 1999 Memorandum & Order (Revised General Schedule).* Orders That Parties Should Provide Board with Joint Rept That Outlines Suggested Schedule for Estimated One to Two Day Evidentiary Hearing.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990920 ML20212B3491999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Reply to Application & Staff Oppositions Ot late-filed Second Amended UT Contention Q.* Applicants Objections to Admission of Second Amended Contention Q Without Merit & Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B8451999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribe B.* State Requests Denial of Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B3661999-09-13013 September 1999 Reply Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of UT Second Amended Contention Q.* Statement of Qualications Was Filed on 971120,as an Exhibit to State of UT Contentions in Proceeding ML20211Q9211999-09-0909 September 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Response to Second Amended Contention Q.* Neither Applicant Nor Staff Oppose Subj Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4651999-09-0909 September 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply).* State of Utah 990909 Motion for Leave to File Reply Granted in That State Reply to 990903 Pfs & Staff Responses Shall Be Filed by 990913.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990909 ML20211N4821999-09-0909 September 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20212A4521999-09-0808 September 1999 Transcript of 990908 Prehearing Conference Private Fuel Storage,Inc in Rockville,Md.Pp 1168-1215 ML20211M3151999-09-0707 September 1999 Joint Rept to Aslb.* Authorizes Applicant to Submit Joint Rept Re Scheduling of Nov 1999 Evidentiary Hearing,Estimate of Time Trial & Security-C Hearings in Response to 990830 Memorandum & Order.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M5691999-09-0707 September 1999 Applicant Position on Dismissal of ITP-related Contentions.* Requests That ITP-related Portions of Contentions Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211Q9301999-09-0707 September 1999 State of Utah Response to Impact of Board Ruling in LBP-99-34 (Utah Contention B) as Ruling May Relate to Other Admitted Contentions.* Maintains That Relevant Parts of Contentions R & Not Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M4051999-09-0707 September 1999 NRC Staff Position Regarding Impact of LBP-99-34 on Other Contentions.* Staff Submits That Remaining ITP-related Contentions (or Portions of Contentions) Should Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M5571999-09-0707 September 1999 Order (Schedule for Responses to Reconsideration/ Clarification Motion).* Orders That Party Responses Be Filed on or Before 990913.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990907 ML20211M5421999-09-0303 September 1999 Applicant Response to State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Utah Contention Q.* Applicant Requests That Board Deny Utah Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4901999-09-0303 September 1999 Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20211M2411999-09-0303 September 1999 NRC Staff Response to State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Utah Contention Q.* Recommends for Reasons Stated,That State Second late-filed Contention Q Be Rejected.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M2021999-08-31031 August 1999 Declaration of Jc Pechman.* Declaration of Jc Pechman Supporting Factual Statements Contained in State of Utah Supplemental Response to Applicant Second Discovery Request (Contention L),Filed on 990831 ML20211J8341999-08-31031 August 1999 State of UT Supplement Response to Applicant Second Discovery Request (Contention L).* State of UT Acceded to Applicant Request to Suppl State 990628 Discovery Request. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211G8141999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting in Part & Denying in Part Motion for Partial Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B).* Decision Rendered in Favor of Pfs.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211G8381999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Denying Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention Utah R).* Pfs Requests for Partial Summary Disposition on Part of Contention Utah R Denied. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211G8941999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah B).* Grants 990611 Motion for Summary Disposition of Pfs & Rendors Decision Re Contention Utah B in Favor of Pfs.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211G9001999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Administrative & Scheduling Matters).* Board Will Hold Telcon with Parties to Discuss Number of Administrative & Scheduling Matters Re Three Group I Issues for Litigation.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211E7411999-08-27027 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contentions security-A & security-B & Partial Summary Disposition Re Contention security-C).* Pfs Motion Granted. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990827 ML20211E8231999-08-27027 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah G).* Order Granted for Reasons Given in Memo.Decision Regarding Contention Rendered in Favor of Pfs.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990827 ML20211F0221999-08-27027 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah M).* Pfs Established No Genuine Issue as to Any Matl Fact & Is Entitled to Judgement in Favor as Matter of Law.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 990827 ML20211G9031999-08-26026 August 1999 Applicant Second Supplement Response to State First Requests for Discovery.* Applicant Files Suppl Response,Per 10CFR2.740(e),to Name Addl Witness to Be Called at Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211A6691999-08-23023 August 1999 Order (Schedule for Responses to Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Contention Utah Q).* Orders That Party Responses to State 990820 Request Be Filed on or Before 990903.With Certificate Svc.Served on 990823 ML20211B9701999-08-20020 August 1999 State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Utah Contention Q.* for Stated Reasons,Second Contention Q Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20211A5701999-08-20020 August 1999 NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Objects to State Discovery Requests.State Has Not Complied with NRC Regulations.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211A5821999-08-20020 August 1999 NRC Staff Second Suppl Response to State of UT First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Reiterates & Renews Each Objection to State Discovery Requests.Related Correspondence ML20211M2121999-08-20020 August 1999 Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of Utah Second Amended Contention Q.* ML20211C0091999-08-20020 August 1999 Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of Utah Second Amended Contention Q.* ML20211B8581999-08-20020 August 1999 Affidavit of B Sagar.* Affidavit of B Sagar Re NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of Utah Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff Re Utah Contention K ML20211B8411999-08-20020 August 1999 Supplemental Affidavit of a Ghosh.* Supplemental Affidavit of a Ghosh Re NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff, Pertaining to Utah Contention K ML20210S4791999-08-17017 August 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply Pleading).* State 990816 Motion to File Reply to Pfs 990806 Response Granted in That State Has Up to 990818 to File Reply.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990817 ML20210U3061999-08-16016 August 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant Response to Amended Contention Q.* Moves for Leave to Reply to Applicant 990806 Response to Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Contention Q.With Certificate of Svc ML20210S3501999-08-12012 August 1999 Errata to 990720 Declaration of Major General J Matthews, Us Air Force (Retired),Re Matl Facts in Dispute with Respect to Contention K.* Submits Errata Notification Re Paragraph 16 of 990720 Declaration.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q6721999-08-10010 August 1999 State of Utah Supplemental Answers to Applicants General Interrogatories (Utah Contention R).* State Suppls Discovery Responses to General Interrogatories 3,4 & 5.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210M4511999-08-0909 August 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply to Response).* Grants State of Utah 990806 Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC Staff 990805 Response.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990809 1999-09-09
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217L8541999-10-21021 October 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to State of Utah Request for Admission of late- Filed Amended Utah Contention V.* NRC Staff Do Not Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B3491999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Reply to Application & Staff Oppositions Ot late-filed Second Amended UT Contention Q.* Applicants Objections to Admission of Second Amended Contention Q Without Merit & Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B8451999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribe B.* State Requests Denial of Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20211Q9211999-09-0909 September 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Response to Second Amended Contention Q.* Neither Applicant Nor Staff Oppose Subj Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4821999-09-0909 September 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20211M5691999-09-0707 September 1999 Applicant Position on Dismissal of ITP-related Contentions.* Requests That ITP-related Portions of Contentions Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211Q9301999-09-0707 September 1999 State of Utah Response to Impact of Board Ruling in LBP-99-34 (Utah Contention B) as Ruling May Relate to Other Admitted Contentions.* Maintains That Relevant Parts of Contentions R & Not Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M4051999-09-0707 September 1999 NRC Staff Position Regarding Impact of LBP-99-34 on Other Contentions.* Staff Submits That Remaining ITP-related Contentions (or Portions of Contentions) Should Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4901999-09-0303 September 1999 Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20210U3061999-08-16016 August 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant Response to Amended Contention Q.* Moves for Leave to Reply to Applicant 990806 Response to Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Contention Q.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q6801999-08-0909 August 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R & Reply to Staff Response to Applicant Motion.* State Requests Opportunity to Cross Examine Applicant Witnesses.With Certificate of Svc ML20210N3431999-08-0606 August 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion to Strike Part of State of Utah Response to Application Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K.* State of Utah Withdraws Arguments Re Tekoi Facility.With Certificate of Svc ML20210N3531999-08-0606 August 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to NRC Staff Response to Amended Contention Q.* State Disagrees with Staff Characterization of History & Significance of State Attempts to Raise Contention Q.With Certificate of Svc ML20210M5531999-08-0404 August 1999 State of UT Reply to NRC Staff Response in Support of Applicant Partial Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention K & Confederated Tribes Contention B - Inadequate Consideration of Credible Accidents.With Certificate of Svc ML20210L0851999-08-0404 August 1999 NRC Staff Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Requests Time Extension to Respond to Utah Discovery Requests.With Certificate of Svc ML20210H7941999-07-30030 July 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories for Utah Contention O.* State Fully & Completely Answered Applicant Four Interrogatories & Motion to Compel Should Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20210H9141999-07-30030 July 1999 Applicant Motion to Strike Part of State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K.* for Listed Reasons,Board Should Strike Portion of State Response.With Certificate of Svc ML20216D6331999-07-28028 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R - Emergency Plan.* Staff Supports Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R & Recommends That Motion Be Granted ML20210H8201999-07-27027 July 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention G.* State Granted an Extension of Time Until 990630 to File Simultaneous Response to Applicant Motion & Reply to Staff Response ML20210H8371999-07-27027 July 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention M.* State of Utah Has Reviewed Pleadings & Will Not Be Filing Responses to Applicant Motion or Staff Response.With Certificate of Svc ML20210H8581999-07-26026 July 1999 State of UT Response to NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention UT B.* Summary Disposition of UT Contention B Should Be Rejected by Board.With Certificate of Svc ML20210E3071999-07-22022 July 1999 State of Utah Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Applicant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Contention O).* Neither NRC Nor State of UT Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20210E3181999-07-22022 July 1999 State of UT Request for Admission of late-filled Amended Utah Contention Q.* Amended Contention Q Meets Commission Std for Late Filed Contentions & Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E4701999-07-22022 July 1999 State of UT Opposition to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of UT Contention K & Confederate Tribes Contention B.* Response Raises Significant Safety Concerns That Applicant Has Not Addressed.With Certificate of Svc ML20210C6601999-07-22022 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention K & Confederated Tribes Contention B.* Staff Submits That Applicant Entitled to Decision in Applicant Favor ML20210C6561999-07-20020 July 1999 State of UT Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Partial Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of UT Contention K & Confederated Tribes Contention B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20210C6681999-07-20020 July 1999 Applicant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories by State of Ut.* Board Should Compel State to Produce Info Requested by Applicant Interrogatories 2-4 & 6 Re Utah O. with Certificate of Svc ML20209H6861999-07-19019 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention G (Qa).* NRC Supports Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention G & Recommends That Motion Be Granted ML20209H6951999-07-19019 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention M - Pmf.* Staff Supports Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention M & Recommends That It Be Granted ML20210B1231999-07-16016 July 1999 State of Utah Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention B.* State Opposes Applicant 990611 Motion & Believes Applicant Not Entitled to Summary Disposition as Matter of Law.With Certificate of Svc ML20209G7171999-07-16016 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah B.* Supports Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah B.Motion Should Be Granted.With EP Easton Affidavit & Certificate of Svc ML20209G0911999-07-13013 July 1999 State of Utah Motion to Dismiss Utah Contentions F & P.* Moves for Dismissal of Utah Contentions F & P,With Prejudice,Which Relate to Training Program for Private Fuel Storage Facility.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K8421999-07-0707 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to State of UT Request for Admission of late-filed Amended UT Contention C.* State late-filed Contention C Should Be Rejected as Failing to Satisfy Commission Requirements Admission.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K5101999-07-0101 July 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions UT Security a & Security B & Partial Summary Disposition of Contention UT Security C.* with Certificate of Svc ML20196K5201999-07-0101 July 1999 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Disposition Motions on Contentions F & P.* Staff Has No Objection to Motion as Long as Time for Response Similarly Extended,As Requested.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K5221999-07-0101 July 1999 Applicant Request to Exceed Page Limitation for Response to State of UT Request for Admission of late-filed Amended UT Contention C.Applicant Requests to Be Allowed to File Up to 20 Page Response to Contention C.With Certificate of Svc ML20212J5561999-07-0101 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Security a & Security B & Partial Summary Disposition of UT Security C.* Staff Supports Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition on UT Security A,B & C ML20196K5041999-06-30030 June 1999 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Disposition Motions & Motions to Compel on Discovery (Group II & III Contentions).* Submits Schedule & Request Approval for Extensions of Time.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K5781999-06-30030 June 1999 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Disposition Motion on Contentions F/P.* Requests Extension from 990701 Until 990706 to File Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Dispositions F/P.With Certificate of Svc ML20196F9231999-06-28028 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention M Probable Max Flood.* Board Should Grant Summary Disposition with Respect to Contention Utah M.With Certificate of Svc ML20196F9491999-06-28028 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R - Emergency Plan.* Board Should Grant Pfs Partial Summary Disposition of UT R.With Certificate of Svc ML20196G5281999-06-28028 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah G.* Board Should Grant Summary Disposition for Utah G,For Stated Reasons.With Certificate of Svc ML20196F1371999-06-25025 June 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of UT Contention H (Inadequate Thermal Design).* Staff Submits That Applicant Entitled to Decision in Favor as Matter of Law,On Subparts 3,4 & 5 of Contention UT H ML20196F9691999-06-25025 June 1999 State of Utah Opposition to Applicant Partial Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention H-inadequate Thermal Design (Document Redacted).* Opposition Supported by M Resnikoff.With Certificate of Svc.Partially Withheld ML20212H7861999-06-21021 June 1999 State of UT Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for State to Respond to Applicant Summary Disposition Motions for UT Contentions B & K.* Neither Applicant Nor NRC Staff Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20196A9581999-06-16016 June 1999 Applicant Response to Ogd Motion to Compel Applicant to Answer Interrogatories & Produce Documents.* Requests That Ogd Motion to Compel Be Dismissed for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20196A8871999-06-16016 June 1999 Joint Motion for Extension of Schedule for Discovery Responses & Showing of Good Cause.* Private Fuel Storage & State of UT Request That Board Extend Date of Response to 990628.With Certificate of Svc ML20195G3531999-06-11011 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah B.* Recommends That Board Grant Pfs Summary Disposition on Utah Contention B & Dismiss Contention for Reasons Stated. with Certificate of Svc ML20196A2171999-06-11011 June 1999 Statement of Matl Facts on Which No Genuine Dispute Exists.* Applicant Submits Statement in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions Utah Security a & B & Partial Security-C.With Certificate of Svc ML20195J4181999-06-11011 June 1999 Intervenor Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Response Opposing Applicant Motion to Quash Deposition of Leon Bear.* Ogd Requests That Motion for Extension of Discovery Be Granted & Pfs Motion to Quash Notice of L Bear Be Rejected.With Certificate of Svc 1999-09-09
[Table view] |
Text
-
a y
DOCKETED n" ~W July 19,1999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '99 JJL 20 P4 :40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nm BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ads In the Matter of.'
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI
)
(Independent Spent Fuel
)
j Storage Installation)
)
i I
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF UTAH CONTENTION G (OUALITY ASSURANCE)
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f2.749(a), the NRC Staff (" Staff") herewith responds to
" Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah G" (" Motion"), filed on June 28,1999, by Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (" Applicant" or "PFS"). For the reasoris set forth below and in i
the attached " Affidavit of Thomas O. Matula Concerning Contention Utah G (Quality Assurance),
i the Staff submits that all issues pertaining to the Applicant's quality assurance (QA) program have been addressed satisfactorily by the Applicant, and there no longer exists a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to Utah Contention G. Accordingly, the Staff therefore supports the Applicant's Motion and recommends that it be granted.
BACKGROUND 1
Contention Utah G (" Quality Assurance") was filed by the State of Utah on November 23, 1997. As admitted by the Licensing Board on April 22,1998, the contention states as follows:
9907210042 990719 g
gm aoocx o7 9,22 j
4
r i '.
CONTENTION:
The Applicant's Quality Assurance ("QA")
program is utterly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Pan 72, Subpart G.8 The State presented various basis statements in support of this contention,2 of which two issues (bases one and four) were admitted by the Board:
RULING: Admitted as supported by bases establishing a genuine material dispute adequate to warrant funher inquiry, but limited to its bases one and four that assert a lack of detail in the PFS QA program description and a failure to demonstrate the independence of the PFS QA program. The contention's basis two rega..!i i
7 nadequate QA descriptions for PFS quality control over spent fuel canister packaging operations and materials and handling at originating reactor sites, shipping cask materials and construction, and welding on shipping casks and spent fuel canisters is inadmissible as impermissibly challenging the agency's regulatory
- program, standards, and/or nilemaking-associated generic determinations.... So too, the contention's basis three concerning inconsistency between the QA program oescription and the SAR is inadmissible as lacking materiality....
LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 188. Thus, two issues were admitted as part of this contention - (1) the purported lack of detail in the PFS QA program description, and (2) PFS' alleged failure to demonstrate the independence of its QA program.
In its motion for summary disposition of Utah Contention G PFS asserts that the two issues raised by the contention have been resolved, and that there is no longer any basis for litigation of the contention. Specifically, PFS states that under 10 C.F.R. il 72.24(n) and i
' Private Fuc/ Storage, LL C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,188 (1998).
2 " State ofUtah's Contentions on the Construction and Operating License Application by Private Fuel Storage, LLC for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility" (" Utah Contentions"), dated November 23,1997, at 42-51.
m
~?
r l,'
-3 t
72.140(c), it is required ta provide a description of a QA program, including a discussion of how 1
the provisions of Subpart G will be satisfied (Motion at 4-5); that Part 72 does not require a QA J
plan to contain the details ofimplementation or implementing procedures but, rather, focuses on an applicant's QA commitments (Id. at 5-6); that its QA program rind commitments provide sufficient detail to satisfy 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart G (Id. at 4, 6); and that any shortcomings identified by the State are immaterial (Id. at 6). Further, PFS states that its QA organization does
)
l possess sufficient independence to effectively implement its _QA Program, including sufficient access to management to ensure resolution of quality concerns independent from cost and schedule
{
considerations (Id. at 7); that the relationship between its Architect / Engineer (A/E) and its QA Committee is clearly defined (Id. at 7-8); that the SAR clearly defines organizational responsibilities of the QA Committee and other persons (Id. at 8-9); and that, consistent with the language in 10 C.F.R. i 72.144(d), unit managers are properly responsible to review their units' performance - subject to independent audit by the PFS QA organization of the QA Program's implementation (Id. at 9-10). Finally, PFS asserts that the individual identified by the State of Utah as an expert in this area (Dr. Marvin Resnikoff) is not qualified by experience or training to serve as an' expert witness in this area, as demonstrated by his deposition testimony (Id. at 3-4).
4 For the reasons set forth below and in the attached Affidavit of Thomas O. Matula, the Staff supports the Applicant's Motion and recommends that it be granted.
DISCUSSION A.
12 gal Standards Governing Motions for Summary Disoosition.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.749(a), "[a]ny pany to a proceeding may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that pany's favor as to all or any
i
.i 4
part of the matters involved in the proceeding. The moving pany shall annex to the motion a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard." In accordance with 10 C.F.R.12.749(b), when a properly supported motion for summary disposition is made, "a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact."' In addition, an opposing party must annex to its answer a short and concise statement of material facts as to which it contends there exists a genuine issue to be heard.
10 C.F.R. { 2.749(a). All material facts set forth in the moving party's statement will be deemed to be admitted unless controvened in the opposing party's statement. Id.' Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
6 2.749(d), "[t]he presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavit, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter oflaw."
8 Accord, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
ALAB-841,24 NRC 64, 93 (1986). General denials and bare assertions are not sufficient to preclude summary disposition when the proponent of the motion has met its burden. Advanced MedicalSystems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-93-22,38 NRC 98,102 (1993).
Although the opposing party does not need to demonstrate that it will succeed on the issues, it must at least demon' strate that a genuine issue of fact exists to be tried. Id.; Public Service Co. ofNew Hampsidre (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-8,35 NRC 145,154 (1992) (to avoid summary disposition, the opposing party had to present contrary evidence that was so significantly probative as to create a material issue of fact).
- Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.749(c), if a party opposing the motion demonstrates in its affidavits that valid reasons exist why it cannot provide facts essential to oppose the motion, the presiding officer may deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained, or take such 1
other action as may be appropriate.
I
,.y
- ' The Commission has encouraged parties in its adjudicatory proceedings to seek summary
. disposition "on issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that evidentiary hearing time is not u'nnecessarily devoted to such issues." Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensine Proceedinos, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,457 (1981).8 Summary disposition has been recognized to provide "an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues." Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-6%, 36 NRC 1245,1263 (1982); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542,550 (1980).'
The Commission's summary disposition procedures have been analogized to Rule 56 of
. the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry
- Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,753-54 (1977). The Commission,.
when considering motions for summary disposition filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.749, generally
)
l applies the same standards that the Federal couns use in determining motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules. AdvancedMedicalSystems, 38 NRC at 102 (1993).
5 The Commission recently endorsed its earlier policy statement, but indicated that " Boards should forego the use of motions for summary disposition except upon a written finding that such a motion will likely substantially reduce the number ofissues to be decided, or otherwise expedite the proceeding." Statement ofPolicy on Conduct ofAdjudicatory Proceedings, CL1-98-12,48 NRC 18,20-21(1998). The Staff submits that partial summary disposition of this contention will reduce the multiplicity of issues that require hearings in this proceeding, and will otherwise serve to expedite the proceeding.
- It is well settled that an agency may ordinarily dispense with an evidentiary hearing where no genuine issue of material fact exists. Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't ofAgriculture,832 F.2d 601, 607-08 (D.C. Cir.1987).
3 b
.c 6-Decisions arising under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules may thus serve as guidelines to the Commission's adjudicatory boards in applying 10 C.F.R. 62.749. Perry, 6 NRC at 754.
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules, the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S.
144,157 (1970); AduancedMedicalSystems, 38 NRC at 102. In addition, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Polter v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1%2); Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), ALAB-944, 33 NRC 81,144 (1991).; However, if the moving party makes a proper showing for summary disposition and the opposing party fails to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact, the District Court (or Licensing Board) may summarily dispose of all of the matters before it on the
. basis of the filings in the proceeding, the statements of the parties, and affidavits. Rule 56(e),
Fed. R. Civ. P. Accord, AdvancedMedical Systems, 38 NRC at102; 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(d).
The Licensing Board in this proceeding has recently had occasion to rule upon a motion for summary disposition filed by PFS. See " Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Contention Utah C), LBP-99-23,49 NRC (June 17,1999).
Therein, the Licensing Board succinctly summarized the standards governing the granting of summary disposition, as follows:
Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a), (d), summary disposition may be entered with respect to any matter (or all of the matters) in a proceeding if the motien, along with any appropriate supporting material, shows that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."
The movant bears the initial burden of making the requisite showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, which it attempts to do by means of a required statement of material facts not at issue and any supporting materials (including
,,,4,m,,
,.-~u.
.,, - - - +
---.-.e...#
_.m,.
- affidavits, discovery responses, and documents) that accompany its dispositive motion.
An opposing pany must counter each adequately supponed material fact with its own statement of material facts in dispute and supponing materials, or the movant's facts will be deemed admitted. Sct Advanced Medical Systems.
hm (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CL1-93-22,38 NRC 98, 1024)3 (1993).
LBP-99-23, slip op at A.
As more fully set fonh below, the Staff submits that summary disposition of this contention is appropriate in accordance with these established standctds.
B.
No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Remains Concernine Contention Utah G.
The Staff submits that there does not exist a genuine dispute of material fact with respect
. to this contention..While the State has contested the adequacy of the level of detail contained in the Applicant's QA Program, the Staff has determined that the level of detail provided by PFS is adequate - as set forth in the NRC Staff Statement of Position on Contention Utah G, filed on June 15,1999, which has been adopted in the attached Affidavit of Thomas O. Matula. See Matula Aff. at 2; "NRC Staff's Statement of Its Position Concerning Group I Contentions"
(" Statement of Position"), at 9-10. Further, while the State challenges the independence of the PFS QA organization, the Staff has determined that the PFS QA Program provides sufficient independence for the QA organization, consistent with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. If 72.24(n) and 72.142 (Statement of Position, at 10-12).' Finally, based on its review of the Applicant's QA
In addition, based on the deposition testimony of the State's designated witness (Dr Resnikoff), it is apparent that the State lacks a qualified expen to support its views as to the adequacy of the Applicant's QA Program, in light of his lack of training and/or experience in evaluating QA. organizations or procedures (see Resnikoff Dep. at 75-76, 78-80, 83-84, 85-86, attached to Applicant's Motion).
q, i
i Program and related documents, the Staff has determined that the Statement of Material Facts attached to the Applicant's Motion is correct in all material respects (Matula Aff. at 2).'
- Accordingly, the Staff submits that there does not exist any genuine issue of material fact with respect to Contention Utah G, and the Applicant is entitled to a decision in its favor on this contention as a matter oflaw.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in the attached Affidavit, the Staff supports the Applicant's motion for summary disposition of Utah Contention G, and recommends that it be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
.daanL el' Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day of July 1999
- As set forth in the attached Affidavit, the Staff has concluded that the Statement of Material Facts attached to the Applicant's Motion is correct, except in three respects: (a) as to Material
' Fact No.13, the term
- Project Director" should read " Project Manager," as set forth in SAR Figure 9.1-2; (b) as to Material Fact No.14, it is unclear to the Staff from the QAPD description and Figure 9.1-3 that the operational QA organization will have an " interface" with the Safety Review Committee - although this is not necessary, since the operational QA organization has direct access to the Chairman of the Board of Managers; and (c) no position is expressed by the Staff as to Material Fact No. 22 concerning the State of Utah's responses to PFS' discovery. As further stated in the attached Affidavit, none of these three matters affects the Staff's conclusion as to the adequacy of the PFS QA program and the independence ofits QA organization (Matula Aff at 2).
_