|
---|
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 ML20012G5341993-02-23023 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 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 ML20116L0501992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116K7851992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule 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 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 ML20116L2841992-10-22022 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 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 ML20127E1371992-09-16016 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 ML20106A4081992-09-14014 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 ML20106A3981992-09-11011 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 ML20106A3831992-09-0909 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 ML20127D6241992-09-0909 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 ML20127D6331992-09-0909 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 ML20106A3671992-09-0808 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
MONTHYEARML20071N4031982-10-0505 October 1982 Motion for Indefinite Continuance of Proceeding.Need for Steam Generator Replacement Alleviated Due to Better than Expected Corrosion Performance of Steam Generator Tubes. Future Rate of Corrosion Unpredictable.W/Certificate of Svc ML20038C1621981-12-0808 December 1981 Response Opposing Christa-Maria 811204 Motion for Indefinite Extension of Time to Respond to Licensee & NRC Motions for Summary Dispostion.Time to Respond Already Extended & Contentions Insubstantial.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140B4781981-08-31031 August 1981 Response to Aslab 810824 Order to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed as Untimely.Untimely Filing Due to Misunderstanding Re Computation of Commission Time Limits for Appeal Filings ML20010D1381981-08-17017 August 1981 Brief,In Form of Pleading,On Appeal from ASLB 810721 Order Denying Petition for Hearing Re 810309 Order Confirming Licensee Actions to Upgrade Facility Performance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18046A7511981-05-28028 May 1981 Reply Supporting Util Workers' Union of America & Mi Util Workers Council 810331 Request for Hearing on Overtime Restrictions Imposed by NRC 810309 Order.Requested Hearing Would Not Involve Labor/Mgt Dispute.Proof of Svc Encl ML19343D1661981-03-31031 March 1981 Requests Hearing on Commission 810309 Order.Restrictions on Overtime Were Imposed W/O Consulting Union Which Is Collective Bargaining Agent for Operating,Maint & Const Employees.Commission Stds Are Not as Restrictive ML18046A2561980-12-0101 December 1980 Response to NRC 801107 Requests for Admissions.Admits That Two Manual Containment Isolation Valves in Containment Bldg Penetration 4a Were Found Locked Open on 790911.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18045A7771980-10-0606 October 1980 Motion to Compel More Specific Answers from NRC to Second Round of Interrogatories 1 Through 4.Requested Info Needed in Detail in Order to Determine If Discretion Abused. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML18045A3831980-07-18018 July 1980 Response in Opposition to NRC 800703 Motion for Protective Order Re CPC 800221 Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.Relief Not Warranted Per ALAB-594. W/Certificate of Svc ML18045A2531980-06-13013 June 1980 Supplemental Motion to Compel NRC Response to 800225 Interrogatories 2 Through 5,13 Through 15 & 17.Matl Not Privileged,Relevant or Necessary to Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18045A2241980-05-14014 May 1980 Motion to Compel NRC to Produce Documents Requested in Util Interrogatories 2,3,4,5,12,13,14,15 & 17.Util Will Review NRC Objections Re Other Matls.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML19290D5851980-01-29029 January 1980 Answers to 800117 Notice of Hearing.Noncompliance Item 1 of 791109 Notice of Violation Miscategorized.Civil Penalties Imposed Per 791220 Order Abused Discretion Entrusted to NRC Per Atomic Energy Act ML18043A8131979-05-30030 May 1979 Consumers Power Opposition to Great Lakes Energy Alliance 790509 Prehearing Conference Statement,Amended Contentions & Request for Financial Assistance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19263E8691979-05-0707 May 1979 States Key Issues for Consideration at 790509 Prehearing Conference.Nrc Should Provide Funds to Intervenor So Latter May Exercise Legal Rights & Assist ASLB in Finding of Facts. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269D9241979-05-0404 May 1979 Applicant Answer Opposing Great Lakes Energy Alliance 790420 Response.Response Does Not Cure Defects Found in Earlier Submission.Alliance Petition to Intervene Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19289E9631979-04-20020 April 1979 Responds to Nrc,Consumers Power Co & ASLB Re Intervention in Hearings on Steam Generator Replacement.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19282C3811979-02-27027 February 1979 Great Lakes Energy Alliance Petition to Intervene & Statement of Contentions.W/Attached Article on Pipe Corrosion ML19331A3741974-11-0101 November 1974 Response to Saginaw Intervenors' Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument.Discusses Saginaw Intervenors' Procedural Deficiencies.Requests That Motion Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A3791974-10-0909 October 1974 Memorandum Opposing Saginaw Intervenors' 740930 Petition to Reopen Record &/Or for Reconsideration of Initial Decision. Petition Untimely & Issues Raised Are Insignificant to Plant Safety & Should Be Denied.Proof of Svc Encl 1982-10-05
[Table view] |
Text
. _ . . - - . - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - - - - -
12/8/81 COCKETE3 UMC
}
(%
Of
- 81 DEC -8 PS:22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _. 0609 u,,,
l /gg
- [ {(55 T-
~
FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 4 AND LICENSING B IN THE MATTER OF )
) Docket No. 50-255 OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) (Spent Fuel Pool
) Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant) )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING- RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CERTAIN CONTENTIONS On December 4, 1981, Intervenors Christa-Maria, Mills, and Bier ("Intervenors") filed a motion requesting an indefinite extension of time within which to respond to the motions for summary disposition made by Licensee and the NRC Staff with respect to Christa-Maria Contention 2 and O'Neill Contention IIA, and with respect to Christa-Maria Contention 8 and O 'Neill Contention IIIE-2. For the reasons given below, Intervenors' request should be denied.
Intervenors' Motion is the latest in a series of motions seeking to defer responses to the motions for summary disposition filed by Consumers Power Company (" Licensee") and the NRC Staff. Originally Intervenors were required to file such responses by October 26, 1981. On October 20, 1981, Intervenors moved the Licensing Board to defer their 8112100182 811208 9 PDR ADOCK 05000255 G PDR Ni 60 f
responses to summary disposition motions until Licensee had complied with certain contested discovery requests; in the alternative, Intervenors requested an extension to November 20, 1981. On October 26, 1981 the Licensing Board granted Intervenors an extension until November 20, 1981. On Novem-ber 18, 1981, Intervenors renewed their motion to defer their responses to summary disposition motions until the resolution of contested discovery requests. By Order of November 20, 1981, the Licensing Board denied Intervenors' motion but granted them until December 11, 1981 to respond to the outstanding motions for summary disposition. Licensee did not object to the two extensions, amounting to some seven weeks in all, which have been granted by the Licensing Board. Licensee must object strenuously, however, to this latest attempt by Intervenors to evade their responsibilities as parties to this proceeding. Intervenors are now asking the Board for an extension of indefinite length premised on the vague hope that they may be able to respond at a future date.
As grounds for their motion, Intervenors state that two " potential witnesses" have " expressed a willingness" to examine the designated contentions and the filings in this proceeding relating to them "with the purpose of deter-mining an appropriate response." Although Intervenors
refer to the preparation of " appropriate statements" by the
" potential witnesses," they do not state, either in the motion or in the attached affidavit, that the two persons have agreed to do anything more than examine the contentions and related materials. Neither the motion nor the attached affidavit gives grounds for believing that either person will produce an affidavit setting forth specific facts showing that genuine issues of fact exist, as 10 C.F.R. S 2.749 requires here. Furthermore, Intervenors do not request any definite time period for their extension. They state only that the " potential witnesses" will complete their review "probably by January 15, 1982." This date would represent a third deferral of over four weeks. Intervenors do not ask for an extension to this date, however; their request is open-ended. The grant of an indefinite extension premised on such vague hopes, particularly in view of the lengthy extensions already granted, would be unconscionable.
In order to compensate for the insubstantiality of the grounds for their motion, Intervenors emphasize what they regard as the importance of the health and safety con-I cerns raised by the contentions which are the subject of the motions for summary disposition. They argue, in effect, i
, , - - , - n-, , , , - - ,- , . . - - - , , - , - - , - - - , , , . , , - - - - . .- --. . , , - , . - - - - - - - . , - - - - - . - - , . - -- , . - , - - - -
that because of the importance of these health and safety issues, the schedule of this proceeding should be revised continually to suit their convenience. However, Inter-venors' unsupported allegation that serious health and safety questions exist is legally insufficient as a response to a motion for summary disposition supported by affidavits such as Licensee has filed. 10 C.F.R. S 2.749. If such un-supported allegations are allowed to serve as the ground for indefinite deferrals of Intervenors' response to summary disposition motions, Intervenors will be enabled to make an end run around the rules of practice and the purpose of summary disposition will be defeated.
Furthermore, in an attempt to create a factitious impression that a serious health and safety question exists, Intervenors have made factual allegations that are not only unsupported but erroneous and irresponsible. Intervenors state several times that "the south wall (of the spent fuel pool] is made of steel, not concrete," and they premise the seriousness of Christa-Maria Contention 2 and O'Neill Con-tention IIA on this " fact." In actuality, all fuel pool walls are made of concrete. Affidavit of Raymond F. Sacramo, dated September 28, 1981, submitted in support of Licensee's
October 5, 1981, motion for summary disposition on Christa-Maria Contention 8 and O 'Neill Contention IIIE-2. Christa-Maria Contention 2 is merely premised on the fact that the south wall tapers to a point that is thinner than the other pool walls, with a minimum thickness of 2 feet. Intervenors apparently have no understanding of their own contention.
The correct facts are available from a number of sources filed in the present proceeding, most recently from the affidavits of Charles E. Axtell, */ William H. Bell, and Roger W. Sinderman, submitted in support of Licensee's motion for summary disposition of the contentions in question.
These affidavits, moreover, demonstrate conclusively that the contentions are insubstantial; Intervenors' forebodings based on misinformation should, therefore, not be allowed to impede the orderly process of summary disposition with regard to the contentions.
- / Mr. Axtell specifically attests to the fact that (i) the thinnest portion of the concrete south wall of the spent fuel pool is 2 feet, and (ii) the thinnest por-tion of the concrete south wall near the stored spent fuel is 3.5 feet. Affidavit of Charles E. Axtell, dated October 2, 1981, p. 4, submitted in support of Licensee's October 5, 1981, motion for summary dispo-sition on Christa-Maria Contention 2 and O'Neill Con-tention IIA.
For these reasons, Intervenors' request for a further extension of time to respond to Licensee's motions for summary disposition of certain contentions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, J h pllo,' Esquire AJk/n Peter Thornton, Esquire
///
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 202/833-9730 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
. Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60603 312/558-7500 Dated: December 8, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) (Spent Fuel Pool
) Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant))
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CERTAIN CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding was hand-delivered to Administrative Judges Grossman, Paris, and Shon on December 8, 1981, and was served on the other persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 8th day of December, 1981.
Herbert Grossman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 l Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board Panel Dr. Oscar H. Paris U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission l Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section l Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick J. Shon Washington, D. C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Janice E. Moore, Esquire Judd Bacon, Esquire ~
Counsel for NRC Staff Consumers Power Company ,- -
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 212 West Michigan Avenue z Commission , Jackson, Michigan 49201 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Christa-Maria Herbert Semmel, Esquire Route 2, Box 108C Urban Law Institute Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, N.W. Ms. JoAnne Bier Washington, D.C. 20009 204 Clinton
'. Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Mr. John O'Neill, II ,
Route 2, Box 44 - . er M r'. James Mills Maple City, Michigan'49664^ Route'2,; Box 108 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 2
f osq@h Gdllo F
/
5 9-
/
/
1
, , , . - - , - . . . - - , - - , , , , - - - - , , - - . . . , , , -r, ,.n , -- --. - - , .