Similar Documents at Perry |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions ML20205D4901999-02-22022 February 1999 Transcript of 990222 Informal Public Hearing on 10CFR2.206 Petition in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-105.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20155F4561998-08-26026 August 1998 Demand for Info Re False Info Allegedly Provided by Wh Clark to Two NRC Licensees.Nrc Considering Whether Individual Should Be Prohibited from Working in NRC-licensed Activities for Period of 5 Yrs ML20236V5261998-07-20020 July 1998 Computer Access & Operating Agreement Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal1998-05-21021 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal ML20216B5111998-04-0909 April 1998 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty.Denies Request for Remission of Violation C,Ea 97-430 & Orders Licensee to Pay Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 within Next 30 Days PY-CEI-NRR-2269, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective ML20216G3821998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Duquesne Light Co & Allegheny Power Systems,Inc ML20217J0661998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Dqe, Inc & Allegheny Power System,Inc ML20198P9311997-11-0707 November 1997 Comments of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc.NRC Should Require Allegheny Power Sys,Inc to Affirm That Capco Antitrust License Conditions Will Be Followed ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20133B6941996-12-18018 December 1996 Submits Ordinance 850-96 Re Approval of Merger of Centerior & Oh Edison Into Firstenergy ML20135F4731996-12-0606 December 1996 Memorandum & Order CLI-96-13.* Commission Reverses & Vacates ASLB LBP-95-17 Which Granted Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Ocre & Hiatt.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961206 ML20132A8461996-12-0202 December 1996 Resolution 20-1996 Supporting Merger of Ohio Edison & Centerior Corp Under New Holding Company Called Firstenergy ML20134M6191996-10-28028 October 1996 Proclamation of Support by City of Sandusky,Oh Re Merger of Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corp ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20108B7571996-04-26026 April 1996 Licensee Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* Recommends That Commission Reverse Board Memorandum & Order Issued 951004.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List PY-CEI-NRR-2034, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl1996-03-11011 March 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20097B8911996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement or in Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures ML20096E2471996-01-0303 January 1996 Comment on PRM 50-64 Re Stockpiling Ki for Use as Thyroid Protectant in Event of Nuclear Accident.Supports Distribution of Ki to Public ML20094N1951995-11-17017 November 1995 Oh Edison Application for License Transfer in Connection W/ Sale & Related Transactions ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6341994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20064N9201994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition. W/Svc List ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1421993-10-19019 October 1993 Order.* Petitioners Shall File Supplemental Petition in Accordance W/Schedule in 931018 Order.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931020 ML20059B1761993-10-18018 October 1993 Order.* Informs That for Each Contention,Petitioners Shall Comply Fully W/Requirements of 10CFR2.714(b)(2)(i),(ii) & (III) & Their Filing Should Address Requirements Set Forth in Regulations.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20058M8761993-09-30030 September 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-21.* Appeal for Hearing Re Amend to Plant OL Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930930 ML20057C0461993-09-21021 September 1993 Supplemental Director'S Decision DD-93-15 Involving 920929 Request for Certain Actions to Be Taken Re Proposed Construction of Interim onsite,low-level Radioactive Waste Facility at Plant.Request Denied ML20056C8951993-07-19019 July 1993 Order Extending Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of LBP-92-32.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 930720 ML20045B5661993-06-0707 June 1993 Comment Re Proposed Generic Communication on Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans,As Published in Fr on 930401 (58FR17293).Believes Concept of Technical Review Not Addressed by STS ML20044E2781993-05-13013 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercise from Annual to Biennial ML20127A6171993-01-0606 January 1993 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of Board Order LBP-92-32,dtd 921118,extended Until 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930106 ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D4761992-12-22022 December 1992 Alabama Electric Cooperative Answer to Applicants Petitions for Review.* Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5871992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review ASLB 921118 decision,LBP-92-32.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underplanning of Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A5751992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review LBP-92-32, 921118 Board Decision in Proceeding.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underpinning of Statute.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A7651992-11-18018 November 1992 Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* City of Cleveland Petition for Review Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4671992-11-16016 November 1992 Licensee Response to Lake County Commissioners 10CFR2.206 Petition.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116E7941992-09-29029 September 1992 Petition for Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Const of Low Level Radwaste at Perry Plant.* Requests Public Hearing Be Held Prior to Const of Storage Site & Const Should Be Suspended Until NRC or Util Produces EIS on Risks ML20101N5131992-07-0808 July 1992 City of Cleveland Opposition to Applicant Request That Licensing Board Disregard Certain Arguments of City of Cleveland Counsel in Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20101N6401992-07-0707 July 1992 Reply by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Applicant Request That Board Disregard Factual Issues.* Applicant Requests Board Disregard Irrelevant Assertions by All Parties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101K2101992-06-29029 June 1992 Applicants Request That Licensing Board Disregard Factual Issues Discussed During Oral Argument.* Foregoing Issues Represent Factual Issues Which Board Should Disregard in Disposition of Phase One of Case.W/Certificate of Svc ML20098D5181992-05-26026 May 1992 Reply of City of Cleveland,Oh to Arguments of Applicants & NRC Staff W/Respect to Issues of Law of Case,Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel & Laches.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List 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 ML20090F4261992-03-31031 March 1992 Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor,City of Cleveland,Oh & Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* City of Cleveland,Oh & Applicant Motions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094K3791992-03-18018 March 1992 Applicants Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule.* Applicants Request That Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J2891992-03-0909 March 1992 Response of DOJ to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges ASLB to Resolve Bedrock Legal Issue in Negative & Concludes That Commission Possess Legal Authority to Retain License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091N1241992-01-24024 January 1992 Applicants Answer to Cleveland Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Applicants Have No Objection to Request for Opportunity to Submit Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087E7821992-01-16016 January 1992 Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Cleveland Requests That Motion Be Granted & 911114 Order Establishing Schedule for Motions for Summary Disposition Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086U5371992-01-0606 January 1992 Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Board Grant Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Due to Lack of NRC Authority to Retain Antitrust License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J4821991-12-31031 December 1991 Reply Brief of City of Cleveland,Oh in Support of Notice of Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order Granting Request for Hearing.* Appeal Should Be Granted,Ref to Board Revoked & Applications Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9231991-12-27027 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply & Reply to Applicants Answer to City Motion for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3001991-12-24024 December 1991 Applicant Answer to Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision. * W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H7161991-12-19019 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N4601991-12-17017 December 1991 Licensees Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc & SL Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Determines That Intervenor Failed to Demonstrate Interest in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086J4741991-12-0909 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply Brief.* Motion to File Reply Should Be Granted for Listed Reasons ML20086G4001991-11-26026 November 1991 Ohio Edison Co Motion for Reconsideration.* Util Respectfully Requests That NRC Vacate CLI-91-15 & Direct Forthwith Answer to Licensee Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079Q0301991-11-0606 November 1991 Oec Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories.* Util Moves Board to Compel NRC to Respond Completely,Explicitly & Properly to Licensee Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B5841991-09-0606 September 1991 Licensee Answer to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Has Shown No Interest in Proceeding.W/Notice of Appearance,Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20076D1611991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc (AMP-Ohio) for Leave to Intervene.* Util Does Not Object to Admission of AMP-Ohio as Intervenor on Basis of Status as Beneficiary.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0481991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric & Toledo Edison to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio for Leave to Intervene.* Utils Believe That 910703 Petition Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081K8961991-06-20020 June 1991 Alabama Electric Cooperative Reply to Oppositions Filed to Petition to Intervene.* Informs of Util Intention to Assure Vindication of Proper Legal Principle.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2391991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio,To Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene.* ML20079D2211991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland, Oh to Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2161991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* AEC Has Not Met Burden of Satisfying Regulatory & Common Law Requirements.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-09
[Table view] |
Text
'
O August 4, 1 83 ~ih -
N- -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
( hnm \.,
i' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :
(-
gg ggg
,lt 9 Docu:mc a 3Dtuct naucn
"*" h'/
_Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board cai \ '
In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
l APPLICANTS ' ANSWER TO OCRE MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON ISSUE #3 i
I. INTRODUCTION I
i Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE"), by its Motion to Reopen the Record on Issue #3, dated July 13, 1983
(" Motion"), requests the Board to reopen the record on Issue #3 to take further evidence. OCRE asserts in its Motion that it has recently received documents through the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") which indicate that "CEI's control of Comstock . ..
may be much worse than the testimony presented at the recent hearing l
would lead one to believe." Id. at 1 (emphasis added). OCRE relies on three FOIA documents, attached to the Motion. The documents are (1) a June 1982 Engineering Change Notice ("ECN")
involving cable tray fill specifications; (2) an August 6, 1982 l
l hDR 0
DO OO 40 PDR e h 1
/1
+
letter discussing Comstock Task Force review findings regarding uncer-tified inspectors; and (3) several pages of unsigned, undated notes discussing the Quality Assurance Advisory Committee
("QAAC") and several other areas of the Perry quality assurance program. These documents are said to " raise significant ques-tions as to the credibility of Staff and Applicant testimony,"
and to " address a significant safety matter." Id. at 1, 4. We 1/
agree with the Staff that OCRE's Motion f ails to meet the stringent test for reopening a record. Applicants therefore 2/
i respectfully request that the Board deny the Motion.
II. OCRE MUST MEET A HEAVY BURDEN TO REOPEN THE RECORD _..
i OCRE properly acknowledges the significant legal obstacles a party faces when seeking to reopen a record. Motion at 3.
"As is well settled, the proponent of a motion to reopen the record has a heavy burden." Kansas Gas __and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 N.R.C. 320, I
338 (1978)(and cases cited therein). That " heavy burden" requires l
i 17 l See NRC Staff's Answer Opposing OCRE's Motion to Reopen the Record on Issue #3, July 26, 1983.
2/
By telephone conference dated July 20, 1983, Chairman Bloch granted Applicants an extensicn of time until August 4, 1983 to answer OCRE's Motion, as agreed to by OCRE.
i
,,_,,.,-.--.,y- ,._ _, . , _ . . , _ , . . , _ . _ _ _ , . . _ . , , . . , . , . , , , . , _ _ _ , , . , _ _ , , , . _ . , , , _ _ , . . _ _ , _ . . , _ _ _ , , . . . , , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ , . , , . .
O that the motion to reopen must be (1) timely, (2) address a sig-nificant safety issue, and (3) establish a different result than the one reached (or, in this case, to be reached) on the evidence already considered. Id. at 338. " Bare allegations" do not suffice.
Neither do " generalized assertions to the ef fect that 'more evidence is needed.'" The record cannot be reopened absent signi-ficant new documentary evidence not included in the record, that materially affects the decision. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-5, 13 N.R.C. 361, 362-63 (1981); Public_ Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-650, 14 N.R.C. 43, 63 (1981).
The purpose of such a stringent rule is to prevent dissatis-fled litigants from seeking to reopen the hearing every time "some new circumstance has arisen, some new trend has been observed, or some new fact discovered." Othewise, "there would be little hope that the administrative process could ever be consummated in an ICC v._ Jersey _ City, 4
order that would not be subject to reopening."
322 U.S. 503, 514 (1944) cited in The Cleveland Electric Illumin-ating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 N.R.C. 741, 750-1 (1977); see also Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-359, 4 N.R.C. 619, 620-1 (1976).
wm --- y , a p -
__.y -m _a _y .w wi-, . _ . _ , - - - . _ _ -
r -- - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
o o Finally, even if OCRE could satisfy the tripartite test set forth above, which it cannot, no reopening of the hearing can be required "if the affidavits submitted in response to the motion demonstrate that there is no genuine unresolved issue of fact, i.e., if the undisputed facts establish that the apparently significant safety issue .does not exist, has been resolved, or for some other reason will have no effect upon the outcome of the licensing proceeding." See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corpor-ation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 A.E.C.
520, 523-5, 527 (1973).
Applicants submit that OCRE's Motion and Attachments cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be deemed to constitute even an "apparently significant safety issue." We dispute the Motion's timeliness and significance as well as its ability to af fect the outcome of this case. Nonetheless, in the event the Board sees
~/
3 it differently, we are attaching affidavits addressing the sub-l 4/
i stance of the three attachments. The affidavits demonstrate j beyond question that there are no " triable issues of fact" raised I
by the Motion. Id. at 523-4.
_3 /
Af fidavit of Gary R. Leidich , August 4, 1983 ("Leidich Af fidavit")
and Affidavit of Cyril M. Shuster, August 4, 1983 ("Shuster Af f idav it" ) .
4/
With respect to the unsigned notes, our af fidavit only addresses i what may be a related finding in an of ficial NRC inspection report. Applicants cannot speculate on any other matters l that may have been in the mind of the anonymous notetaker.
i
III. THE MOTION IS NOT TIMELY OCRE argues that the Motion is timely because OCRE received the FOIA material on June 22, 1983, and therefore the " material could not have been available at tie hearing." Motion at 4.
Obviously, OCRE could have received the June, 1982 ECN and the August 6, 1982 Comstock letter sooner. All OCRE had to do was to file its FOIA request sooner. Instead, OCRE waited until April 15, 1983 (see Attachment 1 to OCRE's Motion) , months after the extended discovery period on Issue #3 was closed. The timing of this matter was in OCRE 's hands. It chose to file an expansive FOIA request a month before the hearing date, and it is not surprising that it took the Staff four weeks to gather the hundreds of documents requested. Should OCRE now be rewarded for its own tardiness? The capacity for mischief is obvious in this instance. A party could erase the Com-mission's timeliness requirement merely by filing a tardy FOIA request. Cf. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 l and 2), CLI-83-19, 18 N.R.C. July 1, 1983).
Moreover, OCRE was free to inquire into these matters in discovery and at the hearing. The ECN issue was set forth as an unresolved item in Report No. 81-19 (Board Exhibit No. 3, p. 75).
Report No. 81-19 was the subject of extensive cross-examination.
At the hearing, OCRE evinced no interest in the unresolved item.
1
, Had OCRE inquired it would have learned that the item had been closed out by the NRC prior to the hearing. Leidich Af fidavit,
- 16. OCRE itself had access before the hearing to the inspection report closing out the ECN issue. Similarly, with respect to the inspector certification issue, OCRE had free access to Applicants' electrical QA documents during discovery and indeed copied hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of documents, in-cluding electrical area NRs, CARS, and DARs. The NRs, CAR, and DAR described in the Leidich Affidavit, 110, were readily available to OCRE prior to the hearing. The NRC inspection report dealing with the Comstock Task Force (see Leidich Affidavit, 19), was admitted as Board Exhibit No. 4 in the proceeding (following Tr. 1619). Indeed the very letter cited by OCRE as new information is listed in the Report (Board Exhibit No. 4, page 3). And of course there was cross-examination at the hearing concerning the Comstock Task Force. See e.g.,
Tr. 1611-19 (Williams, Konklin) .
l Finally, although we cannot speculate as to its source or date, OCRE's Attachment No. 4 covers a number of subjects, such as the QAAC, the quarterly reports, and CEI audits and surveillance of Comstock, which were extensively covered at the hearing. The fact that OCRE has uncovered undated, unidentified, unauthori-tative notes on subjects covered authoritatively on the record, hardly satisfies the timeliness requirement for reopening a record.
For all these reasons, OCRE has failed to show that its Attachments disclose "new" information and that its Motion is timely.
IV. THE MOTION FAILS TO RAISE A SIGNIFICANT. SAFETY _Ijp0E OCRE's Attachments, standing alone, indicate no significant QA problems, and certainly do not involve significant plant safety issues. The cable tray fill ECN (Motion, Attachment No. 2) involved a single procedural clarification in response to an NRC finding regarding non-safety related cables. The portion of the Comstock letter cited by OCRE (Motion, Attachment No. 3) involves inspector certification discrepancies, identified by Comstock in a tack force review. Nothing on the face of the letter suggests that the certification discrepancies involved safety problems, let alone serious problems. The last document (Motion, Attach-ment No. 4) is undated and unsigned, and is likewise limited to discussions of procedural problems that are of no direct safety consequence.
With respect to the last item, we note that CEI recently received an NRC inspection report, Report No. 50-440/83-13(DE);
50-441/83-12(DE)(Report No. 83-12/13), transmitted by the NRC on July 25, 1983, which discusses some of the same issues that are addressed in the unsigned, undated notes. We are attaching a copy of Report No. 83-12/13 for the Board's information. As the Board will note, the inspection report only identifies a i
, single. violation, involving limited QAAC scheduling and docu-mentation discrepancies in 1981 and 1982. The QAAC dis-crepancies do not raise issues calling into question the safety of the plant. The violation was of the lowest severity
- level. In fact, Inspection Report No. 83-12/13 concluded that in many of the areas reviewed, such as in the area of " contractor
- program control," there was "ef fective performance by the Perry site organization." Report No. 83-12/13, pp. 10-11.
If there is the slightest doubt concerning the safety significance of OCRE's documents or Inspection Report No.
83-12/13, the Leidich Af fidavit and Shuster Af fidavit must re-move any such doubt. The Leidich Affidavit explains the ECN l
disposition which OCRE's Motion criticizes. The Affidavit shows that, rather than " sanctioning" cable tray overfill, the ECN in
! question added inspection criteria and review procedures to assure that the intent of the specifications were met. Simi-larly, the Leidich Af fidavit explains that the inspector certi-fication discrepancies received the close attention of Comstock, CEI, and the NRC. The Leidich Affidavit shows conclusively with respect to OCRE's Attachment No. 3 that the certification dis-crepancies have been thoroughly reviewed and that the reinspec-l tions have identified no significant safety problems.
J
s _g_
i Finally, we are submitting the Shuster Affidavit to amplify on the circumstances related to the attached NRC Notice of Viola-tion. The Shuster Affidavit shows that the QAAC has met fre-l quently and has properly reviewed QA program documents. Indeed,
the Shuster Affidavit is consistent with prior testimony by the 1
i Staff that the QAAC has been beneficial for the Project. _See Tr. 1781-83 (Maxwell).
For these reasons, OCRE's Motion fails to satisfy the second
' test for reopening, namely, that there must be a serious safety issue shown.
V. THE MOTION FAILS TO PRODUCE NEW
! DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CAUSE A DIFFERENT RESULT Inasmuch as OCRE's FOIA documents fail to raise new issues, or issues of safety significance, it necessarily follows that additional testimony on the FOIA documents would neither add to the record nor change the outcome of the Board's resolution of Issue 93.
l VI. CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated, Applicants respectfully request the Licensing Board to deny OCRE's Motion.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE OFF -
af: Shy Jay E. Si Harry H.
erg, P.C.
asspiegel
[]
Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: August 4, 1983
r '
August 4, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing _Bpard In the Matter of )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoi g " Applicants' Answer to OCRE Motion to Reopen the Record on Issue #3" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 4th day of August, 1983, to all those on the attached Service List.
~
m7y'G/m Harry H /Glasspiegef ~~~ ~~~~~
l DATED: August 4, 1983 l
l
. - . . . _. . _. - - . - . - _ _ .