|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217N7201998-03-31031 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Changes to 10CFR50.55a,inservice Inspection & Inservice Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Components ML20203J9661998-02-27027 February 1998 Comment on GL 98-XX, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps ML18067A6301997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Supporting NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Charges,Tests or Experiments). DD-97-15, Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request1997-06-18018 June 1997 Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request ML20115H7061996-06-0404 June 1996 Submits Addl Info to Support Petition for Rulemaking PRM-72-3 Re Amend to SAR ML18065A0761995-09-13013 September 1995 Comment on Draft Rg DG-1043 Re Proposed Rev 2 to Rg 1.149. New Malfunction Tests Required by Revised Rg Can Be Tested at Required 25% Per Year & Reported in Next 4-yr Testing Rept W/O Rev to Test Plan ML20086D9031995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Generic Ltr Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval.Proposed GL Also Avoids Unnecessary Expense for Requirements That Provide No Benefit ML18064A8201995-06-27027 June 1995 Comment on Proposed GL Re Relocation of Pressure Temperature Limit Curves & Low Temperature Overpressure Protection Sys Limits.Supports Issuance of Ltr ML20085E6541995-06-13013 June 1995 Comment Re Draft NUREG/BR-0199, Responsiveness to Public. Expresses Concern on Dry Cask Storage W/Exemption Given to VSC-24 Cask & Procedures for Unloading & Transport at Plant ML18064A7681995-05-26026 May 1995 Comment on Proposed GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power Operated Gate Valves. ML20073M0621994-09-29029 September 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Addition of NUHOMS 52B Dry Casks to List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks. Objects to Proposed Rule Because of Substantial Differences Between Fuel Rods & Assemblies at Different Plant ML20056E5101993-08-11011 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning ML20012G5301993-02-26026 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Suggests That NRC Conduct Formal Hearing ML20012G5311993-02-24024 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5331993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5321993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5341993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5231993-02-20020 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5251993-02-15015 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20128L9531993-02-10010 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127E8851993-01-15015 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127E8631993-01-14014 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127F0561993-01-0808 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116N9171992-11-12012 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116K9591992-11-0909 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116L4651992-11-0606 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116K7851992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L0501992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116L1811992-11-0202 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L2051992-11-0202 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L3341992-10-30030 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Can Not Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L2881992-10-26026 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L2681992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Can Not Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L2841992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116K9861992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Deadly Waste Cannot Be Stored Safely.Doe Stated Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L1311992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Cannot Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20127E1371992-09-16016 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4011992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4081992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4721992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3981992-09-11011 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D9421992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6241992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6331992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3831992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6611992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4521992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3671992-09-0808 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4111992-09-0808 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D7191992-09-0606 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule 1998-03-31
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20084J6111984-05-0404 May 1984 Responds Opposing Sinclair 840419 Motion to Request Caseload Forecast Panel Evaluate New Const Completion Schedule.Aslb Should Deny Request for Relief Contained in Motion. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084H2581984-05-0202 May 1984 Memorandum in Opposition to Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 840417 Petition for Review.Gap Policy on Disclosures to Press Rules Out Genuine Claim That Affidavits Were to Be Maintained in Total Confidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N6481984-04-17017 April 1984 Petition for Review of Aslab 840330 Decision & Order ALAB-764 Re Subpoenas Directed to Govt Accountability Project.Aslab Erroneous Re Important Questions of Law & Policy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M9821984-03-30030 March 1984 Response to B Stamiris 840304 New Contention Re Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators.Bases in Support of Contention Clarified.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079M6481984-01-23023 January 1984 Request for Leave to File Encl Corrected Copies of Applicant 831209 Memorandum in Opposition to Appeal of Govt Accountability Project.Table of Contents & Table of Authorities Inadvertently Omitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082U0311983-12-0909 December 1983 Memorandum Opposing Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 831021 Appeal of ASLB Order Granting Util Motion to Depose Gap Witnesses.First Amend Argument Inapplicable Since Affiant Identity Will Not Be Disclosed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E1341983-11-22022 November 1983 Request for Extension Until 831209 to File Brief Opposing Appeal of Govt Accountability Project Deponents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086A8801983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Util Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas.Submission to Discovery Would Cause Immediate Grave & Irreparable Injury to Organizational Viability.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20081F8991983-11-0202 November 1983 Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas Against Govt Accountability Project Deponents,L Clark, T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg.Response from Deponents Must Be Filed Before 831110.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E8931983-10-31031 October 1983 Reply to Applicant 831014 Response to Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of B Stamiris 831005 Motion to Litigate Two Dow Issues.Issues Timely Raised & Present New Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H4271983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Continue Beginning Date of Hearings Scheduled for 831031 to 3 Days After Date.Extended Hearing Necessary to Allow Time to Receive Responses to 831011 Discovery Requests.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090H3401983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion for Admission Into Evidence of Transcript of Jl Donnell 831015 Deposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E9481983-10-25025 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of 831021 Appeal of ASLB Orders Granting Issuance of Subpoenas.Subpoenas Violate First Amend Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B1751983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion to Compel CPC Responses to 831011 Interrogatories & Request for Production Re Investigation of Alleged Violation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B0681983-10-21021 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Appeal from ASLB Orders Granting Discovery Against Govt Accountability Project.Subpoenas Violate Common Law of Privilege.Util Showed No Compelling Need for Discovery ML20078K3141983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to B Stamiris 831005 Second Supplemental Memorandum Supporting Dow Issues.Stamiris Fails to Show New & Significant Info Justifying Reopening Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F5561983-10-0505 October 1983 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Intervenor Stamiris Motion to Litigate Dow Chemical Co Issues Against Applicant.Dow Documents & Complaints Support Litigation of Issues Raised in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P9131983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion to Stay Depositions of L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg as Directed in ASLB 830831 Order.Depositions Should Be Stayed Pending Review of 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P1161983-10-0303 October 1983 Errata to 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078A3471983-09-21021 September 1983 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 830808 Motion to Litigate Dow Issues.Documents Reveal That Util Knew Fuel Load Dates Presented to NRC Jul 1980 - Apr 1983 False. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077S7161983-09-19019 September 1983 Motion by L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg for Extension Until 830930 to File Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830831 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8771983-09-0202 September 1983 Motion to Reconsider Schedule for Submitting Proposed Findings of Fact on Remedial Soils Issues.Intervenors Should Be Required to File Proposed Findings on Remedial Soils Issues by 831115.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8261983-09-0202 September 1983 Response Opposing M Sinclair Motion to Reconsider Privilege Ruling.Presence of Bechtel Officials at 821124 Meeting Does Not Destroy Privilege.Bechtel & CPC Share Common Legal Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076F3261983-08-23023 August 1983 Motion for Extension Until 830902 to Respond to Intervenor Motion to Reconsider Order Upholding atty-client Privilege Protection for 821124 Util/Bechtel Meeting.Motion Received 5 Days After Mailing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076C6711983-08-17017 August 1983 Response to M Sinclair & B Stamiris 830728 Motions Re Dow Vs Util Lawsuit.Aslb Should Defer Motions for 30 Days.Motions Could Be Refiled After Documents Reviewed.Two Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards in Pdr.Certificate of Svc Encl 1986-08-25
[Table view] |
Text
.
l
. ,
. i 10/9/74 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
In the Matter of )
) -Construction Permit CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Nos. 81 and 82
) (Show Cause)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2))
MEMORANDUI! OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION OF THE SAGIIIAW INTERVENORS TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND/OR FOR RECCNSIDERATION OF INITIAL DECISION On September 30, 1974, Saginaw Intervenors moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to (1) reconsider the Initial Decision and upon reconsideration reopen the record for further evidence, and/or (2) to reopen the record. The asserted basis for the motion is that " material, relevant and decisive informa-tion was not brought to the attention of the Licensing Board, which information may have a vital impact upon the decision."
(Petition p. 1) The information consists of the " facts" alleged in a Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan by Consumers Power Company ("Consumera")
against Bechtel Corporation and others arising from a dispute over the construction of the Palisades nuclear power plant. Consumers opposes the petition to reopen the record or reconsideration of the Initial Decision.
.
In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-138, RAI-73-7 pp. 520-534 (July 31, 80 07160 f /f3
.
' ,
-
i
.
-
.
"
1973) the Appeal Board, in considering for the third time the question of reopening a hearing (-ee ALAB-124 in RAI-73-5 at p.
. 358 and ALAB-126 in RAI-73-6 at p. 393) established the princi-
,
ples which are to guide Licensing Boards in reopening an evi-i
'
dentiary record after the conclusion of a hearing. Those principles are as follows:
(1) The timeliness of the motion, i.e.
whether the issues sought to be presented could have been raised at an earlier stage, such as prior to the close of the hearing; and (2) the significance or gravity of those issues. A board need not grant a motion to reopen which raises matters which, even though timely presented, are not of " major significance to plant safety" (ALAB-124, RAI-73-5 at 365).
By the same token, however, a matter may be of such gravity that the motion to reopen should be granted notwithstanding that it might have been presented earlier (ALAB-124, RAI-73-5 at 365, fn.
10; see also ALAB-126, RAI-73-6 at 394).
Applying these principles to the issues raised in the Saginaw Intervenors' Petition, it is apparent there is no basis to reopen the show-cause hearing. On the question of timeliness, it need only be pointed out that, although the Complaint was filed on August 28, 1974, the primary thrust of consumers' civil
-litigation against Bechtel deals with a January, 1966 contract l
for the construction of a facility which was essentially completed
l l in 1970 and licensed to operate on March 24, 1971 (see Initial Decision of September 25, 1974 p. 55 footnote 132). Thus, to the extent the basic f acts on which the civil litigation rests are relevant to the issues before this Board, such facts were. avail-able to the parties to this . proceeding long before August 28, 1974.
L.
.
, .-
'
l ,
-
Indeed, counsel for the Saginaw Intervenors participated in the Palisades operating license proceeding which took place f
i in the years 1970 and 1971 and the Saginaw Intervenors, again
..
I, represented by the same counsel, participated in the Midland I
construction permit proceeding during 1972 and 1973. In both proceedings, Bechtel's role as engineer-constructor for Consumers with respect to construction quality assurance was in issue.
As a result, facts underlying Consumers' civil litigation
, j against Bechtel were subject to discovery in each prior licensing
> i.
f proceeding.
l
.
Moreover, in this show-cause proceeding, the Saginaw Intervenors have made no prior contribution to the evidentiary record. Despite the availability of documents voluntarily pro-duced by Consumers during the discovery process, the Saginaw Intervenors declined to examine them. Following the conclusion of the discovery process, although the Saginaw Intervenors had the burden of proof at the hearing (Initial Decision p. 15, par.
26), they filed no written testimony (Initial Decision p.13, par.
21). they filed no trial brief (Initial Decision p. 14, par. 22),
they did not participate in the evidentiary hearing (Initial De-
,
cision p. 16, par, 28), they did not file a memorandum requesting official notice be taken of certain documents alleged to constitute
!
their. case (Initial Decision p. 19, par. 35) and they did not file proposed findings of f act and conclusions of law. (Initial Decision
- p. 19, par . 3 5) . With this history of inaction on the part of the
.
i .
. ,
-
.
i i
Saginaw Intervenors, it is apparent that their failure to present evidence of a particular type is unrelated to its
{ alleged unavailability.
.
i Just as the Petition was not timely filed, the issues raised are not of " major significance to plant safety" (ALAB-124 at 365, ALAB-126 at 523) and of marginal relevance and materiality to the issues in this proceeding. The Complaint deals with
! occurrences at the Palisades plant and has no connection whatso-ever to the construction of the Midland Plant. Moreover, the
" facts" alleged in the Complaint are of a rather peculiar nature.
It is well established that pleadings in federal civil litigation I need not plead " facts", as such, so long as the pleadings give
.
the opposing party notice of the claim against it and contain a I
- "short and plain statement of the claim". F.R.C.P. 8(a). Simi-larly, federal civil procedure contemplates that pleadings may
'
be alternative and hypothetical. F.R.C.P. 8(e). The lack of significance of pleadings in federal practice is based on the
!
theory that it is only at the conclusion of the discovery process l
that the contentions of the parties and the factual bases for such contentions will become sufficiently delineated so that a meaningful trial will take place. 2A Moore's Federal Practice 18.02. Thus, the " facts" which the Saginaw Intervenors have culled from the Complaint and which they assert should be a part of this evidentiary record are basically legal characteriz'ations of Bechtel's conduct, such as " breach of warranty", " grossly negligent" and
" willful and wanton". (Motion pp. 2-3). Since these
,
.
-
...
-
.
.
"f acts" were authorized by counsel for the purpose of initiating federal civil litigation, their pertinence to the issues in this proceeding is nil. s Even if the " facts" alleged by Consumers in the civil litigation complaint were more substantial than the legal characterizations described above, it is clear that occurrences at the Palisades plant have little relevance to the show-cause proceeding. The two issues specified in the order to show cause issued by the Commission on December 3, 1973 are limited to whether Consumers is implementing its quality assurance program at Midland in compliance with Commission regulations and whether there is reasonable assurance that such implementation will con-tinue throughout the construction process. During the course of the show-cause proceeding, the Saginaw Intervenors attempted to expand the issues in the proceeding to include a review of Con-sumers activities at its other nuclear facilities, including Palisades. The Board rejected this approach, holding only that the attitude of Consumers senior management personnel towards compliance with Commission regulations and license requirements was relevant and material to the issues in the show-cause pro-ceeding (Order, thy 14, 1974). This ruling was specifically ap-l proved by the Commission. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant l
Units 1 and 2) CL1-74-27, RAI-74-7 p. 4 (July 16, 1974) The pri-mary thrust of the Complaint deals with the design and construction of Palisades'. Those activities took place prior to the effective date of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, the basic quality assurance regula-tion with which Consumers must comply in the construction of Midland.
-. -
,-
' *
. .
I
'
l Since the facilities are different and the regulatory standards
!
I under which the facilities were designed and constructed are different, an inquiry by this Board into the "f acts" alleged
,
in Consumers complaint against Bechtel would be a useless exercise.
Finally, the procedure contemplated by the Saginaw Intervenors with respect to the " facts" alleged in the Complaint is either meaningless or would result in this Board trying the issue of Dechtel's liability to Consumers for alleged breach of contract and negligence with respect to Palisades. ine Appeal Board, in the Vermont Yankee decision held that if a motion to reopen the record is granted, there are further procedural steps which must be taken.
[T]he Board must then proceed to consider whether one or more of the issues requires the receipt of further evidence for its resolution.
If not, there is obviously no need to reopen the record for an additional evidentiary hearing._ As is always the case, such a hearing need not be held unless there is a triable issue of fact.
ALAB-138 at 523.
In this instance, the Complaint itself does not con-tain detailed factual allegations supporting its characterizations of Bechtel's conduct. Thus, the complaint itself would add nothing of any substance to the evidentiary record in this pro-ceeding. If, however, a full-blown evidentiary hearing is under-taken into the factual substantiation for the charges in the Complaint, as well as Bechtel's factual defenses to those charges, this Board will become involved in a commercial dispute between Consumers
'
i ,.
.
,
. .
and Bechtel, in which the ultimate issue is not quality assurance compliance at Midland, but whether Bechtel owes Consumers money for breach of contract or negligence in con-nection with services rendered by Bechtel at the Palisades plant. Of course, the scope of that issue can only be determined after extensive discovery. -While that issue will undoubtedly become a " triable issue of fact" at the conclusion of the dis-covery process, it is an issue that is only triable before the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and not before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Saginaw Intervenors' petition to reopen the record should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
, ,. .
,'
Michael I. Miller
/ f t's . itv run R. RekRenfrowIIytp40#'
/k f W ///da,, d Paul M. Murphy /'ggM Attorneys for Licensee Consumers Power Company DATED: Octobar 9, 1974
.
.
IS!!AM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 786-7500 1
- -
,.
- . . . _ . . . . .
.
..
-
-
z:so UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
In the Matter of )
Construction Permits
)
CONSUMERS FOWER COMPANY )
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 ) Nos. 81 and 82 and 2)
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE TO: Michael Glaser, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Laster Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Dr. Emneth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ATTN: Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedin'is Staf f Washington, D.C. 20545' Mr. James P. Murray, Jr.
Chief Rulemaking & Enforcement Counsel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545
.
.
, ,. **
John G. Gleeson, Esq.
The Dow Chemical Company 2030 Dow Center Midland, Michigan 48640
One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Laurence M. Scoville, Jr., Esq.
Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons
& Prewitt 1600 First Federal Building 1001 Woodward Avenue Detroic, Michigan 48226 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have this day filed with the Atomic Energy Commission the Memorandum Of Consumers Power Company In Opposition To The Petition Of The Saginaw Intervenors To Reopen The Record-And/Or For Reconsideration Of Initial Decision, a copy of which is hereto attached and herewith served on you.
I f << _,- 1 Michael I. Miller One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company DATED: October 9, 1974
, IS!IAM , LINCOLN & BEALE l One First National Plaza, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinoia 60603 (312) 786-7500
. -