|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196G4021999-06-18018 June 1999 Comment on FRN Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy NUREG-1600, Rev 1 & Amend of 10CFR55.49.Concurs with Need to Provide Examples That May Be Used as Guidance in Determining Appropriate Severity Level for Violations as Listed ML20206H1881999-05-0606 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App K Re ECCS Evaluation Models. Commission Grants Licensee Exemption ML20206M5111999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Recommends That Listed Approach Be Adopted for Changes to Documents Incorporated by Ref CY-99-007, Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-0071999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-007 TXX-9825, Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps ML20154C4101998-09-30030 September 1998 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Comanche Peak Electric Station Endorses NEI Comment Ltr & Agrees with NEI Recommendations & Rationale ML20216E1051998-04-0707 April 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1029 Titled Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic & Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-related Instrumentation & Control Sys ML20217H3611998-03-26026 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft GL 97-XX, Lab Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal, Issued on 980225.Advises That There Will Be Addl Implementation Costs ML20198Q4851998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane That Requests NRC Amend Regulations Re Emergency Planning to Require Consideration of Sheltering,Evacuation & Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public ML20211A4871997-09-12012 September 1997 Changes Submittal Date of Response to NRC RAI Re Proposed CPSES risk-informed Inservice Testing Program & Comments on NRC Draft PRA Documents ML20149L0311997-07-21021 July 1997 Comment on Draft Guides DG-1048,DG-1049 & DG-1050.Error Identified in Last Line of DG-1050,item 1.3 of Section Value/Impact Statement.Rev 30 Should Be Rev 11 ML20140A4871997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Safety Conscious Work Environ.Util Agrees W/Nuclear Energy Inst Comment Ltr ML20133G5411996-12-0505 December 1996 Transcript of 961205 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Comanche Peak Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers. Pp 1-111 ML20135B7881996-11-29029 November 1996 Order Approving Corporate Restructuring of TU to Facilitate Acquistion of Enserch Corp ML20128M8011996-10-0303 October 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20097D7321996-02-0909 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re CPSES Request for Amend to Its Regulations Dealing W/Emergency Planning to Include Requirement That Emergency Planning Protective Actions for General Public Include Listed Info ML20094Q6421995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for RM PRM-50-62 Re Amend to Regulation Re QAPs Permitting NPP Licensees to Change Quality Program Described in SAR W/O NRC Prior Approval If Changes Do Not Potentially Degrade Safety or Change TSs ML20094H4801995-11-0808 November 1995 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Inst Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste ML20091M6441995-08-25025 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Review of Revised NRC SALP Program.Believes That NRC Should Reconsider Need for Ipap or SALP in Light of Redundancy ML20086M7921995-07-0707 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Process for Changes to Security Plan Without Prior NRC Approval ML20084A0181995-05-19019 May 1995 Comment Suporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Containment Leakage Testing.Supports NEI Comments ML20077M7311994-12-30030 December 1994 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20077L8711994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,55 & 73 Re Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees ML20073B6731994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Re License Amend Request 94-015 ML20073B6951994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Authorizing Signing & Filing W/Nrc OL Amend Request 94-016 ML20058E0561993-11-10010 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule Re Staff Meetings Open to Public. Believes That NRC Has Done Well in Commitment to Provide Public W/Fullest Practical Access to Its Activities ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20045D8321993-06-11011 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54, FSAR Update Submittals. ML20044F3271993-05-21021 May 1993 Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp, Fr Vol 58,Number 52.NRC Should Use EPRI Definitions for Critical Characteristics ML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C1881993-03-17017 March 1993 Order.* Directs Util to Respond to Motion by COB 930319 & NRC to Respond by COB 930322.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930317 ML20128D9651993-02-0303 February 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Stay Request Filed by Petitioners Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930203 ML20128F6221993-02-0303 February 1993 Transcript of 930203 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-2.Related Info Encl ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3461993-01-29029 January 1993 NRC Staff Notification of Issuance of OL for Facility.* Low Power License May Be Issued by 930201.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D6321993-01-29029 January 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Citizens for Fair Util Regulation for Fr Notice Hearing on Proposed Issuance of OL for Facility.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930129 ML20127L9321993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Re Architzel Re Thermo-Lag Installation at Testing for Unit 2.* Statement of Prof Qualifications Encl ML20128D6111993-01-26026 January 1993 Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric ML20127L9181993-01-26026 January 1993 NRC Staff Reply to Cfur Request for Publication of Proposed Action Re Licensing of Unit 2.* Cfur Request That Notice Re Licensing of Unit 2 Be Published Permitting Parties to Request Hearings Should Be Denied ML20127L9661993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Rl Pettis Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Statement of Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L8891993-01-21021 January 1993 Order.* License Should File Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Ltr Requesting That Commission Issue Fr Notice Providing for Opportunity for Hearing Re Issuance of OL by 930125.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930122 ML20127G9191993-01-19019 January 1993 Order.* Grants Petitioners Extension of Time Until 930122 to File Brief.Replies to Petitioners Brief Shall Be Filed on or Before 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930119 ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G8041993-01-15015 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Appeal of Licensing Board Decision Denying Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Filed by Bi & Di Orr.* Board 921215 Decision Should Be Upheld.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A5931993-01-0808 January 1993 Brief in Support of Petitioner Notice of Appeal.Aslb Erred by Not Admitting Petitioner Contention & Action Should Be Reversed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6371993-01-0707 January 1993 Notice of Appeal.* Appeal Submitted Due to 921215 Memo Denying Petitioner Motion for Rehearing & Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings.Proceedings Were Terminated by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-06-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6131993-01-0707 January 1993 Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* Petitioners Did Not Receive Order in Time to Appeal & Requests 15 Day Extension from Motion Filing Date to Respond.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7911992-12-31031 December 1992 Petitioner Amended Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Petitioners Requests Until C.O.B. on 930108 to File Appeal Brief.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7641992-12-30030 December 1992 Petitioner Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Counsel Requests That Petitioners Be Granted Until 930109 to File Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128C9751992-12-0303 December 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements & Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene by B Orr,D Orr, J Macktal & Hasan.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20128B8721992-11-27027 November 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow, Petitioner.* Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Explained in Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128A0271992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Util Requests That Petitioners 921118 Motion to Compel Be Denied in Entirety.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127P8181992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene.* Petitioners Notification Procedurally Improper & Substantively Improper & Should Be Rejected by Board.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4591992-11-19019 November 1992 TU Electric Opposition to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow.* RM Dow 921110 Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20127M4271992-11-15015 November 1992 Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Petitioners Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan Requests That Board Declare Null & Void Any & All Provisions in Settlement Agreements.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M3181992-11-10010 November 1992 Motion for Prehearing by RM Dow,Petitioner.* Requests Period of Ten Days to File Supplemental Pleading to Original Petition.Certificate of Svc & Statement Encl ML20106D8881992-10-0808 October 1992 Opposition of Util to Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposbale Workers of Plant & RM Dow.* Request for Extension of Time & to Become Party to Proceeding Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20106D2821992-10-0505 October 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* Petitioner Requests 30-day Extension.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101P5891992-06-30030 June 1992 Response of Texas Utils Electric to Comments of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc. Dispute Strictly Contractual Issue Involving Cap Rock Efforts to Annul Reasonable Notice Provisions of 1990 Power Supply Agreement ML20127K8141992-05-19019 May 1992 Request to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke License Held by Util for Unit 1 & for Cause Would Show Commission That Primary Place of Registration for Organization Is Fort Worth,Tarrant County,Tx ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095C4691992-04-17017 April 1992 TU Electric Answer to Application for Hearings & Oral Argument by M Dow & SL Dow.* Concludes That NRC Should Deny Application for Oral Argument & Hearings on Petition to Intervene & Motion to Reopen.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2561992-04-0606 April 1992 Application to Secretary for Hearings & Oral Argument in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene out-of-time & Motion to Reopen Record Submitted by SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* ML20094K4161992-03-16016 March 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Motion & Supplemental Motion to Reopen by M Dow & SL Dow & TU Electric Request for Admonition of Dows.* Concludes That Motion Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091A0461992-03-13013 March 1992 Suppl to Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend License Pending New Hearings on Issue. W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4241992-02-24024 February 1992 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend OL for Unit 1 & CP for Unit 2,pending Reopening & Final Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4431992-02-21021 February 1992 Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* Requests That Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time Be Granted for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3811991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Submits Responses to Motions to Reopen Record ML20086Q3121991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Motion for Leave to File Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Recognize J Ellis as Case Representative for Filing & Pleading Purposes.W/Limited Notice of Appearance ML20091G2511991-12-0202 December 1991 Licensee Answer to Motion to Reopen Record by M Dow & SL Dow.* Requests That Petitioners Motion Be Denied for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance ML20086G7381991-11-22022 November 1991 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That Licensing Board Reopen Record & Grant Leave to File Motion to Intervene. W/Certificate of Svc ML20006C4811990-02-0101 February 1990 Applicant Answer to Request for Stay by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur).* Cfur Failed to Satisfy Burden to Demonstrate Necessity for Stay & Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20006B1691990-01-27027 January 1990 Second Request for Stay Citizens for Fail Util Regulation.* Requests That NRC Stay Fuel Loading & Low Power Operation of Unit 1 Until 900209.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3601989-10-15015 October 1989 Request for Stay Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Requests That Commission Retain Authority to Order That Fuel Loading & Low Power License Not Be Immediately Effective,Per Util Intent to Request License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246B8671989-08-17017 August 1989 Motion for Reconsideration of NRC Memorandum & Order CLI-89-14.* NRC Should Excuse Itself from Consideration on Matters Re Jj Macktal & Should Refer All Issues on NRC Requested Subpoena to Independent Adjudicatory Body ML20248D6291989-08-0202 August 1989 Jj Macktal Statement Re Motion for Recusation.* Macktal Motion Considered Moot Due to Commission No Longer Having Jurisdiction to Consider Motion Since Macktal Not Party to Proceeding Before Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q3851989-07-26026 July 1989 Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record.* Withdraws 890714 Motion to Reopen Record.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J7331989-07-26026 July 1989 Request of Cap Rock for Reevaluation of Director'S Determination That No Significant Changes in Licensee Activity Warrant Antitrust Review at OL Stage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247B5901989-07-19019 July 1989 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests Board to Reopen Record & Grant Leave to Renew Earlier Motion for Intervention Status. W/Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc ML20248D5731989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Reconsideration.* Requests Reconsideration of NRC 890122 Order on Basis That NRC Subpoena Filed for Improper Purposes & NRC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Matters Presently Before Dept of Labor ML20248D5541989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Recusation.* Requests That NRC Recuse from Deciding on Macktal Cases on Basis That NRC Will Not Be Fair & Impartial Tribunal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J9411989-06-30030 June 1989 Response of Texas Utils Electric Co to Request of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc,For Order Enforcing & Modifying Antitrust License Conditions ML20248D4891989-06-13013 June 1989 Motion for Protective Order.* Requests That Jj Macktal Deposition Be Taken at Stated Address in Washington,Dc & That Testimony Remain Confidential.W/Certificate of Svc ML20011E8571989-02-10010 February 1989 Reply of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc to Comments of Texas Utils Electric Co.* Texas Utils Response Considered Irrelevant,Mainly Incorrect or Misleading.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155A8251988-10-0303 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation First Suppl to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Petition & Requests for Hearings Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154Q2021988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Reply to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) First Suppl to 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Cfur Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150E2131988-07-13013 July 1988 Citizens Audit Motion for Stay & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests Time to Review Concerns of J Doe & for Relief for Listed Items in Order to Act as Intervenor in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6181988-07-12012 July 1988 Motion for Petitioners to Appear Pro Se.* Petitioners Request to Appear Before Board at 880713 Hearing in Order to Present Arguments in Support of Petitioners Motions & for Stay of Proceedings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E1831988-07-12012 July 1988 Response of Applicant to Motions to Stay,To Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief Filed by Various Petitioners.* Papers Filed by Petitioners Should Be Rejected & Denied & Dismissal of Proceedings Be Completed.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-03-19
[Table view] |
Text
.- -
T)l y
NOVEM k[1985 ,
i
.gg N 12 P2:55 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
sf)fr= 7 i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
-- ) 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF VIEWS ON WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICANTS'
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION MOTIONS I. INTRODUCTION l
During an informal telephone conference held on October 16, 1985, the Chairman of the Licensing Board requested the Applicants and the NRC Staff (" Staff") to respond to two issues: (1) whether the " written filings procedure stipulation" affects the right of Applicants to with-l draw their summary disposition motions; and (2) does the stipulation l
apply to all summary disposition motions submitted by Applicants, or just to those regarding pipe support design and design QA (the Walsh-Doyle concerns). This filing sets forth the Staff's position on these two issues.
051115004o esitos PDR ADOCK 05000445 'T (
C PDR h
, II. BACKGROUND A number of concerns relating to the design and design QA for piping and pipe supports were raised by CASE witnesses Messrs. Mark Walsh and Jack Doyle. Following the presentation of evidence by the Staff and Applicants on these concerns, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order stating that it had insufficient information on which the conclude that the design and design QA for piping and pipe supports at CPSES was adequate, and suggesting that the Applicants submit a plan for an independent review for pipe supports. " Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)", LBP-83-81, 18 NRC 1410 (1983);
" Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design)", LBP-84-10, 14 NRC 509 (1984) (" Design QA Order").
In response to the Board's Design QA Order, the Applicants submitted a plan for responding to the Board's questions on piping and pipe support design and design QA. " Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum end Order (Quality Assurance for Design)" (February 3, 1984); " Supplement to Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)" (March 13,1984) (collectively,
" Applicants' Plan"). One aspect of the Applicants' Plan involved the submission of testimony and documentary evidence of tests and analyses addressing 16 technical issues originally raised by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle. Applicants' Plan, pp. 3-7. Applicants subsequently submitted approximately 16 summary disposition motions
motions on piping and pipe support design and design QA 1/ through the spring and summer of 1984. 2/
Prior to the submission of these summary disposition motions, lengthy hearings were held on the Independent Assessment Program ("IAP")
conducted by Cygna Energy Services ("Cygna"). A large portion of these hearings were devoted to technical discussions relating to piping, pipe support and cable tray support designs. After the filing of Applicants' first summary disposition motion, the Board and parties held a telephone conference call on May 24, 1984 to discuss, inter alia, the schedule and the procedures to be followed in responding to the Applicants' summary disposition motions. See Tr. 13797-98. As discussed in Section III.A below, the parties agreed to a procedure to resolve the Applicants'
-1/ Applicants have referred to 16 summary disposition motions in other pleadings. See, e.g., " Applicants' Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of All Issues" (June 28, 1985), p. 59.
However, the Staff points out that the Applicants have also filed a summary disposition motion on AWS and ASME Code provisions on welding for pipe supports (April 5, 1985), as well as a " response" to a Board Order on A-500 steel (April 11,1984). The subject matters of both of these Applicants filings were alleged by CASE to relate to pipe support design and were raised by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle. Hence, the Staff also regards these Applicants' filings as part of their Plan.
~
2/ CASE responded to all of Applicants' summary disposition motions.
The Staff responded to Applicants' summary disposition motion on AWS and ASME Code provisions for welding, and their summary disposi-tion on, as well as Applicants' response on A500 steel and was in the process of assessing the remaining motions when the Applicants requested that the Board and Staff suspend their consideration of the summary disposition motions. Letter from Robert Wooldridge to Peter Bloch (March 21, 1984), p. 3, item 9.
summary d_isposition motions by written filings to the extent possible. $/
On June 29, 1984, the Board issued its " Memorandum and Order (Written Filing Decisions, #1: Some AWS/ASME Issues), LBP-84-25, 19 NRC 1589
(" Written Filings Order"). The Written Filings Order memorialized the parties' agreement (made during a May 24, 1984 telephone conference) to resolve the Applicants' summary disposition motions through the use of written' filings whenever possible, and resolved in favor of Applicants one of their summary disposition motions.
Apart from the pipe support design and design QA issues, Applicants had submitted summary disposition motions on protective coatings S/ and the related matter of the J. J. Lipinsky trip report. El Both CASE and the Staff responded to one of these summary disposition motions.
On September 25, 1985, the Applicants indicated that they were
" unequivocally withdraw [ing]" all of their summary disposition motions which have not yet been resolved by the Board. " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Modification with Respect to the Board's Memo-randum of August 29, 1985 (Proposal for Governance of this Case)",
- p. 10. On October 2, 1985, the Board issued a " Memorandum and Order 3/ The parties' adoption of this procedure would appear to be consistent with the Board's previously-expressed desire that the parties would be able to submit "some of the open issues to this Board on written filing ." See Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues) (March 15, 1984 p. 3---
4/
~
The summary disposition motions address near white blast (May 13, 1984), maximum surface roughness (June 26,1984), and Westinghouse component coatings (September 5, 1984).
5/ This summary disposition motion is dated September 29, 1984.
(Applicanes' Motion for ?!odification)", LBP , 22 NRC ("Modifi-cationOrder"). In its Modification Order, the Board acknowledged Applicants' withdrawal of their summary disposition anotions and indi-cated that it would not act on the Motions. Modification Order, p. 4.
III. DISCUSSION A. Effect of the Written Filings Procedure " Stipulation" The Staff does not consider the written filings proceeding "stipula-tion"5I as a bar to the Applicants withdrawal of their summary disposition motions. The genesis of the " written filings proceeding stipulation" may be found in a May 24, 1984 telephone conference among the Board and the parties. The conference call occurred in the period immediately following the filing of the first of Applicants' summary disposition motions on piping and pipe support design and design QA. The Chairman of the Board opened the telephone conference by indicating "the principle with which we are concerned today are the written motions to summary disposition filed by the applicants and whether or not the parties agree that these are addressing matters that should be able to be filed in writing." Tr. 13,797-98. After inquiring as to the Staff's schedule for responding to the summary disposition motions (Tr. 13,798-800),the Chairman asked:
[W]hether, in light of that process [of eval-uating and respondin disposition motions]g to Applicants'
, you think that it summary would be p/ The Staff notes that the agreement between the parties regarding the procedure to be following was not actually memorialized in a written stipulation.
l-
--fruitful to ldbk forward to a situation where the Board would attempt to resolve these matters based on the written filing, supplemented, if necessary, by further written filings requested by the Board or by oral argument or, if the Board considers it necessary to resolve the issues fairly, by cross examination of specified witnesses. Would you prefer adopting a procedure at this point which favored the determination on written papers in the discretion of the Board?
Tr. 13,800-01 (emphasis added). Counsel for both the Staff and Appli-
-cants agreed that such a procedure would be acceptable. Tr. 13,801-02.
CASE also agreed that the procedure would be acceptable, stating:
I think that that's a -- pretty much our feeling.
I think it would be worth the effort to try to resolve the things on paper, if possible, and at the very least I think it would be worth our while because we could narrow the issues considerably, and at best, we might be able to resolve all of them on paper to the Board's satisfaction.
I think that's certainly a good way to approach
, it. I don't think at this point, without checking i
with Mr. Walsh or Doyle, what their schedules would be like as far as meeting. That seems like a reasonable way to proceed if we could, you know, work out some -- with them to be available.
Tr. 13,802-03. The Chairman reiterated the nature of the written filings procedure for CASE, asking:
You understand that what we were requesting is that the parties agree in advance that the Board would attempt to reach decisions based on the -
written filings and that we would only have addi-tional -- we would only have a hearing or cross examination if the Board determined that that was necessary to make a recent decision. Is that an acceptable standard to you, Mrs. Ellis?
Tr. 13,803 (emphasis added). CASE responded affirmatively. Id.
It is clear, based upon the above-quoted portions of the May 24, 1984 telephone conference transcript, that the Board and parties agreed
to adopt 4he written fitings procedure solely in order to expedite the litigation of the technical issues associated with the Walsh-Doyle ,
i piping and pipe support design / design QA concerns. 7/ It was never intended that the Board be limited to the first round of written-filings submitted by the Applicants. Rather, it was contemplated that the written-filings ,
procedure would serve to narrow the issues-in-contention, such that the true technical differences between the positions of the parties would be highlighted. In this manner, the Board could focus its inquiries and assessment, and thereby expedite the progress of the hearing. The Staff's conclusion in this regard is further supported by the Board's Written Filings Order, where the Board explains the written filings procedure and its desirability as follows:
Another unusual aspect of the procedure is that we have adopted--with the permission of the parties--a somewhat more lenient standard for granting summary disposition. Whenever we find ambiguities requiring further clarification, we will ask auestions (in writing or on the record),
request briefs or otherwise seek to clarify matters fairly. Having done that, we will schedule a hearing (or cross-examination of one or more witnesses) only if we determine that the hearing is necessary for us to make a reasoned decision; we have described this as " adopting a procedure
. . . which favored the determination on written papers in the discretion of the Board . . . " .
Tr. 13,798-13,800-13,801, 13,803.
The purpose of this more lenient standard for summary disposition is to avoid unduly prolonged hearings of technical matters, which generally are better resolved based on an understanding of the 7/ As stated in note 3 above, the parties' agreement to adopt the written-filings procedure is consistent with, and in furtherance of, the Board's earlier-expressed desire that the parties attempt to resolve issues in written-filings to the extent possible.
-facts rather t'han by use of a magical wand to discern truth telling. Our experience in these hearings is that the technical issues require careful study and the comparison of the views of the experts called by the parties. This is an arduous task that is helped by cross-examin-ation only when there is substantial lack of clarify in the written filings or there are important disagreements that require clarifica-tion and resolution through the oral interchange provided by a hearing. Cross-examination rarely succeeds in unmasking experts as charlatans and tends to waste time.
Written Filings Order, pp. 2-3 (emphasis added). The Staff does not believe that either the Board or the parties ever intended that the written filings procedure would be anything other than an agreement to litigate the pipe support design and design QA issues in the form of written filings, to the extent possible.
In light of the clear words of the Board and parties regarding the nature of written filings procedure at the time of adopting the proce-dure as well as the Board's explanation of the purpose for adoption of the procedure in the Written Filings Order, it is Staff's position that the written filings procedure should not act as a bar to the withdrawal of the Applicants' summary disposition motions. 8/
B. The Scope of the Written Filings Procedure " Stipulation" As noted above, the Board and parties' discussion leading to the written filings procedure " stipulation" occurred soon after the first
-8/ The Staff agrees with Applicants that the affidavits which accompany the summary disposition motions being withdrawn may be (F0OTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l l
9 group of #plicants' sudnary disposition motions on piping and pipe support design / design QA were filed. The quoted portions of the tele-phone conference transcript reveal that tne entire focus of the discus-sion among the Board and parties was limited to the summary disposition motions on piping and pipe support design / design QA, even though at least one protective coating summary disposition motion (on near-white blast) had been filed as of the date of the telephone conference. See Tr. 13,797-806. Second, the Board's order which discussed the agreement of the parties in this matter (the Written Filings Order) refers only to pipe support design / design QA summary disposition motions:
This memorandum and order inaugurates a series of decisions intended to resolve, without further hearings, as many of the design quality assurance and design issues remaining in this case.
Written Filings Order, p. 1 (emphasis added). Finally, the Written Filings Order refers to the May 24, 1984 telephone conference transcript in discussing the parties' assent to the written filings procedure.
Written Filings Order, pp. 2-3. This is evidence that the Board intended its Written Filings Order to memorialize the previous agreement of the parties, and not to expand the agreement to cover all summary disposition motions.
(F0OTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) used by CASE for purposes that are consistent with the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. Part 2), such as impeachment. Appli-cants' Answer to Board Question Regarding Withdrawal of Motions for Summary Disposition (November 1, 1985, p. 7).
Thes.g factors, considered together, are strong evidence that the Board and parties understood that the written filings procedure was applicably only to Applicants' (and possibly CASE's) summary disposition motions on pipe support design / design QA. In any case, given the Staff's conclusions in Section IV.A. above that the written filings procedure does not bar the withdrawal of summary disposition motions, the Staff does not regard the matter of scope of the written filings procedure
" stipulation" to be crucial to the resolution of the issue of Applicants' ability to withdraw their summary disposition motions.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should find that the written filings procedure agreed to by the parties during the May 24, 1984 telephone conference and memorialized in the Written Filings Order does not affect the Applicants' ability to withdraw all of its summary disposition motions.
Respect ully submitted, MN)f Geary S. Mizuno Counsel for MC Sta"f Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of November,1985
E.
-- ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
) 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF VIEWS ON WITHDRAWAL OF APPLI-CANTS'
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION POTTONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of November, 1985:
Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman
- Mrs. Ju.snita Ellis Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission uallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Division Dean, Division of Engineering P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Architecture and Technology Austin, TX 78711 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK, 74078 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
William A. Horin, Esq.
Elizabeth B. Johnson Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Administrative Judge Purcell & Reynolds Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1200 17th Street, N.W.
P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Washington, DC 20036 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman * !
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge !
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC 20555 l
/ _ .
Billie Pfener Garde Mr. W. G. Counsil Citizens Clinic Director Executive Vice President Government Accountability Project Texar. Utilities Generating Company 1901 Que Street, N.W. 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Washington, DC 20009 Dallas, TX .75201 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.* William L. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Lanny Alan Sinkin Worsham, Forsythe, Samples 3022 Porter Street, N.W., #304
& Wooldridge Washington, DC 20008 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 James T. McGaughy Southern Engineering Co. of Georgia Mr. James E. Cummins 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Atlanta, GA 30367-8301 Steam Electric Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 38 Panel
- Glen Rose, TX 76043 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, DC 20555 William H. Burchette, Esq.
Mark D. Nozette, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Heron, Burchette, Ruckert Board Panel *
& Rothwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Robert D. Martin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid ,
1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-4798 kV Stuart A. Treby /
Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel