|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
.
fffiE0 g .
a, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c F' r c DD ,{D I.?[CPET1!!v BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARDd:I$[-f0Vd
~
In the Matter of )
) ..
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket-Nos 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 5'6 '~'4 9 9 - O L .y ,,
)
South Texas Project, )
Units 1 and 2 )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CCANP'S MOTION TO ADOPT CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENOR CEU I. Introduction By letter dated June 14, 1982 Intervenor' Citizens For Equitable Utilities (CEU) and Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P), jointly requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) permit CEU to withdraw from this proceeding.
At the hearing session on June 15, 1982 the Board approved CEU's withdrawal. Tr. 10384. Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. (CCANP) thereafter sought to adopt CEU's contentions and was granted until July 12, 1982 to file a motion for that purpose. Tr. 10669-70; Memorandum, at 3 (June 24, 1982).
The Board subsequently granted CCANP's unopposed request for an extension of time to file its motion until August 2, 1982.
8208170250 820813 PDR ADOCK 05000498 Tys03
o Order (July 9, 1982).1/ On July 30, 1982 CCANP served its Motion To Adopt Contentions Of Intervenor Citizens For Equi-table Utilities (Motion), seeking to adopt CEU contentions
. 4-8 as admitted by the Board in its August 3, 1979 Memorandum and Order.
CCANP makes no effort to justify its adoption of CEU's contentions under applicable NRC standards and instead, seems to assume that it is entitled to adopt those contentions, three years after they were admitted, by simply requesting to do so.
Since, as we demonstrate below, CCANP has failed to make the showing necessary to permit its adoption of CEU's contentions, its Motion must be denied.
II. Argument CCANP's Motion is governed by the standards applicable to late petitions for leave to intervene and late-filed con-tentions. Those standards are set forth in 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) and require a showing of good cause as well as a balancing
- / At the hearing CCANP was also given until July 12, 1982 to indicate which if any of the proposed "American Bridge" contentions, first filed by CEU and later co-sponsored by CCANP, it still wished the Board to rule upon in light of the removal of Brown & Root from the Project. Tr. 10669-70; Memorandum, at 3-4 (June 24, 1982). This deadline also was extended until August 2, 1982. Order (July 9, 1982). Since CCANP has not filed any request to pursue the "American Bridge" contentions within the extended deadline established by the Board, those contentions are no longer under consideration for admission.
of four additional factors. / 1 Application of Section 2.714 (a) (1) is not affected by the fact that the contentions are those of a withdrawing partici-pant. In Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977), the Appeal Board addressed a situation very similar to the one in question here. There, the State of Louisiana (State) , participating as an " interested State" pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.715(c), advised the Appeal Board that it would no longer participate in the proceeding. Shortly thereafter, a petitioner filed a late petition for leave to intervene in an effort to " substitute itself" for the State and "to pursue the same issues which that participant had advanced." Id. at 795. Because it
-*/ Section 2.714 (a) (1) specifically requires a balancing of the following factors:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's par-ticipation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's par-ticipation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
The statement of consideration explaining Section 2.714 (a) (1) makes clear that that provision must be applied in ruling upon the admissibility of late-filed contentions as well as late intervention petitions. 43 Fed. Reg.
17798 (1978). See also, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361 (1981); Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station),
LBP-80-24; 12 NRC 231 (1980). Thus the application of Section 2.714 (a) (1) is clearly not restricted to the introduction of new parties to a proceeding.
intended to adopt the issues developed by the State and to take "the case as it [found] it," the petitioner argued that it need not demonstrate good cause for its failure to file in a
. timely fashion. Id. In rejecting this argument, the Appeal Board held that all late petitions must address the requirements of Section 2. 714 (a) (1) "no matter whether intervention is being sought on a substitution basis or, instead, for some other 5 , reason."- Id. at 796.
In an effort to demonstrate good cause for its late peti-tion, the petitioner stated that it had been " lulled into in-i action by the State of Louisiana." Id. In rejecting this argument, the Appeal Board quoted Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-440, 6 NRC 642, 645 (1977), a case in which a petitioner sought late intervention because she had relied on the State of South Carolina to pro-tect her interests and had become dissatisfied with the quality of that representation:
That explanation . . . will not carry the day. It is not claimed the State under-took to represent the interests of the peti-tioner specifically, as opposed to the public interest generally. This being so, [the petitioner] assumed the risk that the State's degree of involvement in the proceeding would not fulfill her expectations. And a foreseeable consequence of the materializa-tion of that risk was that it would then no longer be possible to undertake herself the vindication of her interests.
Several other cases have arrived at similar conclusions in analogous circumstances. In Consolidated Edison Co.
0 (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), LBP-82-1, 15 NRC 37 (1982),
petitioners for late intervention had believed that certain issues would be considered in another, related proceeding. In rejecting the petitioners' attempt to demonstrate good cause, the Board stated:
Just as a petitioner may not rely upon its interests being represented by another and then justify an untimely petition to inter-vene on the other's withdrawal from the ]
proceeding [ citing River Bend and Cherokee],
a petitioner may not rely on the pendency of another proceeding to protect its interests and then justify its late petition on that ,
reliance when the other proceeding fails to I encompass petitioner's interests.
Id. at 39-40. See also South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.
(Virgin C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 887 n.4 (1981). In Easton Utilities Comm'n v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970), the court, in affirming the denial of a late intervention petition stated:
We do not find in statute or case law any ground for accepting the premise that proceedings before administrative agencies are to be constituted as endur-ance contests modeled after relay races in which the baton of proceeding is passed on successively from one legally exhausted contestant to a newly arriving legal stranger.
Thus the case law demonstrates that a showing of good i cause will be required before a petitioner can substitute itself for an existing party based upon the latter's withdrawal or the former's dissatisfaction with the quality of its
representation on the issues in question. The cases also demonstrate that the simple assertion that a petitioner had relied upon another party to protect its interests will not
. establish good cause for a late filing. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that CCANP is an existing party in this proceeding. CCANP had ample opportunity to seek to join I in sponsoring CEU's contentions when they were first proposed I i
and chose instead to rely on CEU, if indeed, CCANP even per- l l
- l ceived an interest in those contentions at all. /
1 CCANP's Motion is the first indication that it has ever I
had an interest in litigating CEU contentions 4-8. As such, it was incumbent upon CCANP to come forward and make a showing that its adoption of those contentions at this stage in the proceeding is justified based upon the relevant criteria.- /
This it utterly failed to do.
-*/ On at least one occasion, CCANP affirmatively demon-strated its recognition of the fact that it had to co-sponsor contentions if it wished to protect its perceived interests. In its letter to the Board dated September 21, 1981 CCANP joined CEU in sponsoring the then proposed "American Bridge" contentions.
- / Unlike Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521 (1979), where the Appeal Board indicated that an intervenor or petitioner cannot anticipate the objec-tions that may be made to its proffered contentions and therefore is entitled to file a response to those objections when proffered, CCANP, in this case, clearly had the burden of coming forward in the first instance with a showing that application of the factors set forth in Section 2.714 (a) (1) justified its adoption of CEU's contentions. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975);
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350 (1980).
0 No effort was made by CCANP to demonstrate good cause for seeking to adopt these contentions now, after a history of disinterest. Its Motion states only that "CEU has already
- met the standards of specificity and established a sufficient basis" for these contentions. Although that was a prerequisite for their admission three years ago, it is wholly irrelevant ,
to whether CCANP is entitled to adopt the contentions now.
CCANP's allegation that the contentions relate to "potentially serious health and safety problems" is similarly irrelevant. t No contentions are admitted unless they relate to health and safety or environmental matters within the Commission's juris-diction. Such admissibility, however, does not mean that an intervenor can adopt them as a matter of right years later. /
Having failed to make any showing of good cause, CCANP's burden with respect to the other criteria of Section
- 2. 714 (a) (1) is even greater. West Valley, supra, Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383 (1976). The Board's consideration of whether other means are available to protect CCANP's interests and the extent to which other parties will protect those interests should bear little weight when the Board takes into account CCANP's prior opportunity to demonstrate that it had
- / CCANP's additional self-laudatory claim that it
" considers itself obligated to pursue these questions" may purport to explain its motivation, but it neither demonstrates good cause nor relates to any of the applicable criteria.
- . an interest in CEU contentions 4-8 and its failure to protect that interest in a timely fashion. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that CCANP's adoption of CEU contentions 4-8 will reasonably assist in developing a sound record.* /
Finally, CCANP's adoption of CEU's contentions will obviously broaden the issues and although the resulting delay may not be ascertainable with precision, the mere possibility that extensive delay may not result is not a sufficient basis for granting CCANP's Motion. River Bend, supra, 6 NRC at 798.
III. Conclusion l CCANP's effort to adopt CEU contentions is not signifi-cantly different from attempts by late intervention petitioners to substitute themselves for withdrawn or unsatisfactory parties. In each of these cases, the entities in question have, by inaction, undertaken the risk that their interests
-*/ In this regard Applicants note that the Board has ex-pressed some interest in hearing testimony on the issue of hurricane wind loading (CEU contention 4) . Tr.
10670-71. On this or any other contention which the Board determines to constitute a " serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter,"
it may of course, exercise its sua sponte authority by setting forth the basis for its determination pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.760a. Texas Utilities Generating Co.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-24, 14 NRC 614 (1981). However, such authority is to be used with discrimination, particularly when there is every reason to believe that the matters in-volved are receiving or will receive careful attention from the NRC Staff outside of the adjudicatory pro-ceeding. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-20, NRC - (1982)
(reversing the Licensing Board's decision to admit sua sponte eight new contentions). See also, Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-82-12, - NRC (1982) (denying the Appeal Board authorization to hear certain matters sua sponte).
t would not be adequately served by the existing participants on the issues in question. CCANP has at no time prior to the instant Motion expressed any interest in the CEU contentions at
~
issue here and its Motion fails to set forth a single basis upon which the Board may find that CCANP's delay in evidencing an interest in those issues was justified. As a result, CCANP's Motion to adopt CEU's contentions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
.t Jack R. Newman Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Donald J. Silverman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Finis E. Cowan Thomas B. Hudson, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Dated: August 13, 1982 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS of the South Texas Project act-
& AXELRAD ing herein on behalf of itself 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. and the other Applicants, THE Washington, D.C. 20036 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, act-ing by and through the City BAKER & BOTTS Public Service Board of the City 3000 One Shell Plaza of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER Houston, TX 77002 AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
t
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL
)
South Texas Project, )
Units 1 and 2 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that " Applicants' Response to CCANP's Motion to Adopt Contentions of Intervenor CEU" and " Notice of Appearance of Donald J. Silverman" have been served on the following indi-viduals and entities by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 13th day of August, 1982.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-46 Citizens Concerned About Livermore, California 94550- Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, Texas 78233 Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Lanny Sinkin Utilities, Inc. 2207-D Nueces Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, Texas 78705 Brazoria, Texas 77422
~,
F 3 !
s Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
i Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
I I
h heb '
Maurice Axelrad' i
t i
,-- .. . _ . . , .--__ . ,_-. _..-- -_-,- -__- - . , , , ._-,