|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20116G9431996-08-0707 August 1996 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re, Mods to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements 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 ML20086D8841995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style ML20085E5891995-06-0909 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Changes to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control ML20080A1331994-10-21021 October 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy.Advises That Util of Belief That NRC Focus on Safety Significance in Insps & Enforcement Policy Can Be Achieved by Utilization of Risk Based Techniques ML20073M3261994-10-0303 October 1994 Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants ML20072B8521994-08-0505 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to FFD Requirements.Licensee Believes Reduction in Amount of FFD Testing Warranted & Can Best Be Achieved in Manner Already Adopted by Commission ML20065P4121994-04-25025 April 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Rule Re Code & Stds Re Subsections IWE & Iwl.Expresses Deep Concern About Ramifications of Implementing Proposed Rule ML20058G6211993-12-0606 December 1993 Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines,Rev 2. Concurs W/Numarc & Nubarg Comments ML20056F3481993-08-23023 August 1993 Comment Opposing NRC Draft GL 89-10,suppl 6 ML20058B6891993-05-0707 May 1993 Affidavit of RP Barkhurst to File W/Nrc Encl TS Change Request NPF-38-135 ML20058E0251990-10-12012 October 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR51 Re Renewal of Nuclear Plant OLs & NRC Intent to Prepare Generic EIS ML20055E9871990-06-29029 June 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Mod for fitness-for-duty Programs & Licensed Operators.Util Believes That High Stds of Conduct Will Continue to Be Best Achieved & Maintained by Program That Addresses Integrity ML19353B2241989-12-0101 December 1989 Comments on Draft Reg Guide,Task DG-1001, Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Util Endorses NUMARC Comments W3P89-0196, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs at Nuclear Plants.Proposed Rule Would Require Establishment of Maint Programs Based on Reg Guides That Have Not Been Developed,Proposed or Approved1989-02-28028 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs at Nuclear Plants.Proposed Rule Would Require Establishment of Maint Programs Based on Reg Guides That Have Not Been Developed,Proposed or Approved ML20235V4571989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Chapter 1 Re Policy Statement on Exemption from Regulatory Control.Agrees W/Recommendations & Limits Proposed by Health Physics Society in L Taylor Ltr to Commission ML20205P9691988-10-26026 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear License Renewal. Supports Contents of NUREG-1317 & Endorses NUMARC Comments on Rulemaking & Position Paper by NUMARC Nuplex Working Group W3P88-1366, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Conserning Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants or Utilization Facilities1988-07-13013 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Conserning Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants or Utilization Facilities ML20135F0931987-04-0909 April 1987 Testimony of Bb Hayes Before Senate Government Governmental Affairs Committee on 870326 Re Discovery of Sensitive NRC Document in Files of Senior Official of Louisiana Power & Light Co ML20212N5781986-08-27027 August 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000 Based on Violations Noted in Insp Conducted on 860101-31. Violation Noted:Plant Entered Mode 3 While Relying on Action Requirements of Tech Spec 3.6.2.1 ML20202G3811986-04-10010 April 1986 Order Imposing Civil Penalties in Amount of $130,000,based on Safety Insps of Licensee Activities Under CPPR-103 Conducted from June 1983 - Sept 1985.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20210B9141986-02-0505 February 1986 Notice of Publication of Encl 841219 Order.Served on 860206 ML20198H4461986-01-30030 January 1986 Memorandum & Order CLI-86-01 Denying Remaining Portion of Joint Intervenors 841108 Fifth & Final Motion to Reopen Record Re Character & Competence of Util Per 850711 Decision ALAB-812.Dissenting View of Palladino Encl.Served on 860130 ML20137J3531986-01-17017 January 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860214 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 860117 ML20138P5301985-12-20020 December 1985 Order Extending Time Until 860117 for Commission to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851220 ML20137U4821985-12-0505 December 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851220 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851205 ML20138S0051985-11-15015 November 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851206 for Commission to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851115 ML20138H2451985-10-24024 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851115 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 851024 ML20133F2711985-10-0404 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851025 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812 .Served on 851007 ML20134L5981985-08-28028 August 1985 Notice of Appearance of R Guild & Withdrawal of Appearance by L Bernabei & G Shohet for Joint Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J2801985-08-26026 August 1985 Answer in Opposition to Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Commission Review of Aslab 850711 Decision ALAB-812, Which Denied Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record.Kw Cook 850821 Affidavit Encl ML20137J2941985-08-21021 August 1985 Affidavit of Kw Cook Re Recent Equipment Failures Discussed in Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Review.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20136J1961985-08-19019 August 1985 Answer Requesting That Commission Deny Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Review of ALAB-812 Denying Motion to Reopen QA & Character Competence Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133L8901985-08-0909 August 1985 Petition for Review of ALAB-812,denying Joint Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record of OL Hearing to Litigate Util Lack of Character & Inability to Assure Safe Operation in Light of Const QA Breakdown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133L0421985-08-0808 August 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850920 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-812.Served on 850808 ML20128Q1861985-07-23023 July 1985 Request for Extension of Time Until 850809 to File Appeal to 850711 ALAB-812 Denying Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209F1921985-07-11011 July 1985 Decision ALAB-812 Denying Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record on Const QA & Mgt Character & Competence, Except Insofar as Issues Re Matters Under Investigation by Ofc of Investigation Are Raised.Served on 850711 ML20116P1931985-05-0606 May 1985 Response to NRC & Util Responses to Aslab 850322 Memorandum & Order ALAB-801.Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Proceedings for Litigation of Util Competence Should Be Granted.Supporting Documentation & Svc List Encl ML20116H3341985-04-30030 April 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100K3221985-04-10010 April 1985 Supplementary Comments Attesting to Validity of Statements of Fact in Sser 9 & Clarifying & Explaining Current Position on Resolution of Allegation A-48.Util Can Safely Operate & Manage Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20111C7021985-03-14014 March 1985 Affidavit of RP Barkhurst Re Power Ascension Testing Program to Be Performed at Levels Above 5% of Rated Power.Facility & Operating Staff in Excellent State of Readiness to Proceed W/Power Ascension ML20112A9381985-03-14014 March 1985 Affidavit of RP Barkhurst Re Power Ascension Testing Program Performed at Levels Above 5% Rated Power & Delay in Issuance of Full Power Operating Authority.Related Correspondence ML20111B6541985-03-12012 March 1985 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Applicant Response to Supplemental Memorandum.Svc List Encl ML20102C1351985-02-28028 February 1985 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 850225 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Response to Suppl.Suppl Untimely Filed.Allegations Unsupported.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20195F5871985-02-25025 February 1985 Affidavit of Rk Kerr Re 841120 Meeting W/Cain,Dd Driskill, R Barkhurst,Admiral Williams & Rs Leddick to Discuss Licensee 1983 Drug Investigation 05-001-83(966) & 841206 Meeting Between Licensee & NRC in Arlington,Tx ML20107M7461985-02-25025 February 1985 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen.Determination by Aslab That Joint Intervenors Met Burden to Reopen Record for Litigation of Contention That Util Mgt Lacks Competence Requested ML20107M7321985-02-25025 February 1985 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motions to Reopen.Request Based on Recent Public Repts Re Instability & Lack of Independence of Mgt of Applicant & Lack of Respect for NRC ML20101T3701985-02-0101 February 1985 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 850125 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant 841130 & Staff 841221 Answers.Motion Should Be Denied & Reply Brief Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101U3411985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation ML20101U3511985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation.Certificate of Svc Encl 1996-08-07
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20137J2801985-08-26026 August 1985 Answer in Opposition to Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Commission Review of Aslab 850711 Decision ALAB-812, Which Denied Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record.Kw Cook 850821 Affidavit Encl ML20136J1961985-08-19019 August 1985 Answer Requesting That Commission Deny Joint Intervenors 850809 Petition for Review of ALAB-812 Denying Motion to Reopen QA & Character Competence Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133L8901985-08-0909 August 1985 Petition for Review of ALAB-812,denying Joint Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record of OL Hearing to Litigate Util Lack of Character & Inability to Assure Safe Operation in Light of Const QA Breakdown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20128Q1861985-07-23023 July 1985 Request for Extension of Time Until 850809 to File Appeal to 850711 ALAB-812 Denying Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116P1931985-05-0606 May 1985 Response to NRC & Util Responses to Aslab 850322 Memorandum & Order ALAB-801.Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Proceedings for Litigation of Util Competence Should Be Granted.Supporting Documentation & Svc List Encl ML20111B6541985-03-12012 March 1985 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Applicant Response to Supplemental Memorandum.Svc List Encl ML20102C1351985-02-28028 February 1985 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 850225 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum & Response to Suppl.Suppl Untimely Filed.Allegations Unsupported.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107M7461985-02-25025 February 1985 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen.Determination by Aslab That Joint Intervenors Met Burden to Reopen Record for Litigation of Contention That Util Mgt Lacks Competence Requested ML20107M7321985-02-25025 February 1985 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motions to Reopen.Request Based on Recent Public Repts Re Instability & Lack of Independence of Mgt of Applicant & Lack of Respect for NRC ML20101T3701985-02-0101 February 1985 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 850125 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant 841130 & Staff 841221 Answers.Motion Should Be Denied & Reply Brief Rejected.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101U3411985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Motion for Leave to File Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation ML20101U3511985-01-25025 January 1985 Joint Intervenors Reply to Applicant & NRC 841221 Responses to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Three QA & Mgt Integrity Contentions for Litigation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112C0071985-01-0808 January 1985 Applicant Answer to NRC Staff Motion for Clarification &/Or Reconsideration Re Concrete Basemat & Qa.Qa Motion Lacks Presentation of Matters.Decision on QA Motion Should Be Reconsidered.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100B0251984-11-30030 November 1984 Response to Joint Intervenors Protective Order to Shield Identity of Several Individuals Having Executed Affidavits in Support of Concurrent Motion to Reopen Record.Motion Must Be Denied ML20100B0481984-11-30030 November 1984 Response to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motion to Reopen Record & Admit Contentions Alleging QA Failures,Applicant Lack of Character & Competence to Operate Plant & Inadequate Review. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20099D2861984-11-16016 November 1984 Motion for Extension of Time to 841130 for Filing Answers to Joint Intervenors 841108 Motions Due to Vol of Matl & Thanksgiving Holiday.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K6651984-11-0606 November 1984 Motion for Protective Order to Shield Identity of Individuals Who Signed Affidavits Providing Portion of Basis for Joint Intervenors 841107 Motion to Reopen Record on QA Breakdown at Plant ML20092B6371984-06-15015 June 1984 Response to NRC Motion for Addl Extension of Time Until 840706 to Respond to Joint Intervenors Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22.No Objection Offered.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084P7961984-05-17017 May 1984 Response to NRC 840515 Motion for Further Extension of Time Until 840615 to Respond to Joint Intervenors Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22.Motion Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087P8541984-04-0606 April 1984 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time.Intervenors Have Had Two Chances to Present Adequate Motion to Open Record on QA Allegations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087N0871984-03-28028 March 1984 Motion for Extension of 6 Months to File Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080R9611984-02-20020 February 1984 Motion to Open QA Contention,Based in Part on Encl Article Re Doctored Records.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079F3241984-01-13013 January 1984 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 831212 Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22 & Request for Public Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083D9361983-12-22022 December 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 840113 to File Answer to Joint Intervenors 831212 Motion to Reopen Record to Consider Contention 22.Extension Needed Due to Holidays.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082T9991983-12-12012 December 1983 Amended & Supplemental Motion to Reopen Contention 22 in Light of Newly Discovered Evidence.News Article & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080R1851983-10-12012 October 1983 Response to NRC 831007 Motion for Further Extension to 831121 to File Response to Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Contention.Motion Not Opposed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076G8881983-08-29029 August 1983 Request for Extension to File Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Contention 22,to 10 Days After Util Receipt of Consultant Analysis Rept.Granted by Aslab on 830829 ML20024E2861983-08-0404 August 1983 Request for Extension Until 830909 to Allow Response to Joint Intervenor 830722 Motion to Reopen Record on Basis of Moisture Found on Foundation Mat Floor.Engineering Rept Due 830901.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072N8331983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion to Associate Author as co-counsel W/L Fontana for Intervenors ML20072N8591983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion to Reopen Contention 22 in Light of Newly Discovered Evidence ML20072N8821983-07-15015 July 1983 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reopen Contention 22 Re Available Info on Slab Cracks Initially Reported in 1977, Reappearing on 830511.New Hearing Requested to re-review Deficiencies in Plant Design ML20024A0661983-06-10010 June 1983 Exceptions to ASLB 830526 Partial Initial Decision. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20073Q4591983-04-26026 April 1983 Supports NRC 830415 Motion to Correct Hearing Transcript. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069H4771983-03-29029 March 1983 Request for 1-wk Extension of Filing Date for Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Evacuation Brochure.No Opposition Expressed to Granting Applicant Reasonable Extension ML20069G4041983-03-22022 March 1983 Response Opposing State of La 830311 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief on Issue of DHR Capability.Motion Untimely & No Good Cause Shown.Issue Abandoned by Parties Cannot Be Briefed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069E9681983-03-18018 March 1983 Request for Enlargement of 70-page Limit on Brief Opposing Joint Intervenors exceptions.Sixty-one Exceptions Cannot Be Addressed in 70 Pages.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069C2691983-03-11011 March 1983 Motion to File Brief Amicus Curiae,Per 10CFR2.715,re Feed & Bleed Capability.Issue Must Be Presented to Aslab. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083Q5371983-02-23023 February 1983 Request for Extension Until 830325 to File Brief in Opposition to Joint Intervenors Exceptions.Extension Necessary Because of Time Needed to Prepare for Three Other NRC Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070T1991983-02-0404 February 1983 Brief Supporting Joint Intervenors Exceptions Re Contentions 8/9 & 17/26 (1) & (2).Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070L4921982-12-27027 December 1982 Exceptions to 821103 Partial Initial Decision ML20079J3491982-12-24024 December 1982 Exception to ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision Re Condition 2.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070H4121982-12-17017 December 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821213 Memorandum & Order.Due to Ill Health of E Duncan,30-day Extension Requested in Which to File Direct Testimony & Commence Hearings ML20067C5171982-12-0707 December 1982 Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 821130 Motion to Extend Time for Filing Direct Testimony & to Reschedule Hearing on Emergency Brochure.Joint Intervenors Fail to Justify Untimeliness of Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069N3271982-11-29029 November 1982 Response Opposing Applicant 821112 Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Certain Rulings in ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision on Conditions for Evacuation & Ltrs of Agreement ML20028A3051982-11-17017 November 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821129 to File Exceptions to ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision.Time Needed Due to Research Coordinator Giving Premature Birth & Having Minor Complications ML20066F0271982-11-12012 November 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision & Motion for Extension of Time to File Supporting Brief Until 30 Days After Svc of ASLB Ruling.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066E9571982-11-12012 November 1982 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Portion of ASLB 821103 Partial Initial Decision Dealing W/Conditions Re State & Local Offsite Emergency Plans & Scope of Contention 2 on Vehicles & Drivers.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071N4061982-10-0606 October 1982 Erratum to Applicant 821004 Response to Joint Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071N4111982-10-0606 October 1982 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 820929 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Make Discovery & Objections to Request for Production of Documents.Discovery Requests Prohibited by Commission Rules ML20063N7481982-10-0404 October 1982 Response Opposing Joint Intervenors 820929 Motion to Reopen. Requests Not Founded in Fact or Law & Fly in Face of Any Sense of Administrative Discipline & Procedural Regularity. Some Requests Defy Logic.Certificate of Svc Encl 1985-08-09
[Table view] |
Text
e2D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of bN 20 A9*Q7
. LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT C0F.PANY ) Docket No. 50-3 hE[ 3[C ' '
)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )
Unit 3) )
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO JOINT INTERVENORS' PETITION FOR REVIEW
)
1 I
4 2
Sherwin E. Turk Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel August 19, 1985 1
9508200647 850819 PDR ADOCK 05000382 G PDR g50
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT C0F.FANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(WaterfordSteamElectricStation,)
Unit 3) )
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO JOINT INTERVENORS' PETITION FOR REVIEW Sherwin E. Turk Deputy Assistant Chief
. Hearing Counsel
. August 19, 1985
, e
,o ;
- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPetISSION ;
i BEFORE THE COMMISSION
.In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-382
! (WaterfordSteamElectricStation,)
- Unit 3) )
i NRC ST.AFF'S ANSWER TO '
l JOINT INTERVENORS' PETITION FOR REVIEW j On August 9,1985, Joint Intervenors filed a " Petition for Review" j
- (" Petition"), in which they seek Connission review of the Atomic Safety i
- i
! and Licensing Appeal Board's decision denyingetheir motion to reopen on l l
i cuality assurance and character and competence issues. Louisiana Power j 4 and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812, l 22 NRC (July 11, 1985). 1/ ,
Pursuantto10C.F.R.52.786(b)(3),theNRCStaff(" Staff")hereby-J j files its answer to Joint Intervenors' Petition. For the reasons set
't
~
forth herein, the Staff submits that the Joint Intervenors have failed 4
to demonstrate the existence of any error by the Appeal Board which war- .
- rants Comission review and, accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
~1/ The Joint Intervenors had previously filed four other motions to reopen, including an earlier motion to reopen on quality assurance issues. All of those motions have previously been denied by the j Appeal Board and were not addressed in ALAB-812. See ALAB-812, i' slip op. at 1. The denial of those other motions to reopen is not challenged in the instant Petition.-
i 4
4 . . . . - _.. _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ ._..,_._....;. ,. _, -_ ,, ,,,,__.,.... ,_ , __ . . . _ _ . . .
. INTRODUCTION Joint Intervenors' motion to' reopen was filed on November 8, 1984, more than one and one-half years after the record of this proceeding had been closed. U In their motion, the Joint Intervenors sought to raise three new contentions for litigation: (1)thatasystematic breakdown had occurred in the plant's construction quality assurance program, (2) that Applicant Louisiana Power and Light Company ("LP&L" or " Applicant") lacked sufficient character and competence to operate a nuclear plant, and (3) that the NRC Staff's inspection and investi-gation efforts were inadequate to ensure that potentially significant construction deficiencies have been corrected and that the plant can operate safely.
Following the filing of responses to the motion to reopen by the Applicant and Staff, and the filing of additional detailed responses atthedirectionoftheAppealBoard,E the Appeal Board issued its 2/ Hearings in this proceeding concluded on February 11, 1983, and the record was then closed. The Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's final PID (LBP-83-27) on December 9, 1983, at which time it also denied two of Joint Intervenors' earlier motions to reopen.
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 FRC 1321 (1983).
-3/ On March 22, 1985, the Apoeal Board ordered stricken from the record all but a small portion of the Staff's initial response to Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen, finding that it suffered serious deficiencies in form and substance and did not adequately explain the bases for the Staff's conclusion that the motion should be denied, Louisiana Power and Lisht Co. (Waterford Steam ElectricStation, Unit 3),ALAB-801,21FRC479(1985).
h i
. -3 decision in ALAB-812. Therein, the Appeal Board ruled as follows (Id.,slipop,at3):
- [W]edenyJointIntervenors' November 8motionto
- reopen the record in all respects save one: insofar i as the motion raises issues that may relate to matters under investigation by 01, we are unable to rule and therefore leave that part of the motion for the Com-mission's resolution.
l' l In so ruling, the Appeal Board considered and rejected virtually all of the assertions made by the Joint Intervenors in their motion to reopen and in the 62 lengthy exhibits which were attached to that motion. Only matters which concerned pending OI investigations were left unresolved; I those matters were referred, instead, to the Commission for resolution.
See id., slip op at 72-73.
l DISCUSSION The standards governing the grant of petitions seeking Comission review of decisions by the Appeal Board are well defined. While the grant of such a petition is within the discretion of the Comission.
l as set forth in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.786(b)(4), a petition seeking review of matters of law or policy must present an important question which merits the Comission's review:
A petition for review of matters of law or policy will not ordinarily be granted unless it appears the case involves an important matter that could significantly affect the environment, the public health and safety, or the common defense and security, constitutes an important antitrust question, involves an important procedural issue, or otherwise raises important questions of public policy. i l
l I
I
l '
10C.F.R.$2.786(b)(4)(1). When these standards are applied to Joint Intervenors' Petition, it is clear that they have failed to establish that Comission review of ALAB-812 is warranted. $/
Nowhere in their Petition do the Joint Intervenors challenge any aspect of ALAB-812 to the extent that the Appeal Board actually ruled upon and denied portions of their motion to reopen. Rather, the Joint Intervenors assert the following two grounds in support of their request for Comission review: (1) that the Appeal Board deprived them of their right to a hearing by referring to the Comission, rather than deciding on its own, issues which involve investigations being conducted by the Office of Investigations ("0I") (Petition at 1-2); and (2) that "recent equipment failures" at the facility demonstrate that the Appeal Board erred in relying upon the Applicant's reinspection and record review program (Id.at2). In the Staff's view, neither of these assertions merits Comission review of ALAB-812.
With respect to the Appeal Board's referral of OI matters to the Comission for resolution, that action has not deprived the Joint Inter-venors of any opportunity for a hearing which they might otherwise have had. The Appeal Board did not deny their motion to reopen to the extent that it involves matters under review by 01, but instead, explicitly left those matters to be resolved by the Comission. See ALAB-812, slip
-4/ In so stating, the Staf f does not suggest that the Comissior.
should decline to accept the Appeal Board's referral of matters under review Sy the Office of Investigations. On the contrary, the Staff believes that the referral of those matters to the Comission constitutes an appropriate means for achieving a proper and timely resolution of those matters.
.__ _ _ _.-_ _ . _ _ __ _. __ _- _ _- = _ __ _ .
i f
i
- , - 5-
! op, at 72-73. While the Appeal Board stated that nothing which it had i
reviewed gave it "cause for significant concern about the integrity of
! LP&L's manaagement," it expressly declined to deny Joint Intervenors' i
mction on OI matters, stating that it "cannot rule out all possible grounds for Joint Intervenors' charges." Id., at 71-72. Thus, to j.
whatever extent those matters involve a significant health and safety l
issue,El the Comission could still direct that the record be reopened and, accordingly, the Joint Intervenors have not been " deprived" of a
! hearing with respect to those matters. Inasmuch as the Joint Inter-venors have failed to establish that the referral of 01 matters to the ;
Consission presents an important safety, environmental procedural, public policy, or other issue which warrants Commission review of f
I ALAB-812,theirPetitionshouldbedenied.5/-
i
-5/ While the Staff is aware of the general nature of the matters under -
review by OI, we are not privy to all of the detailed information-
. which OI may have provided to the Appeal Board, nor have we reviewed ,
the investigative documents which OI made available to the Appeal i
- Board (see ALAB-812, slip op. at 71). . Accordingly, the Staff i expresses no opinion as to whether the information adduced by OI j constitutes significant informatio'n which might have affected the outcome of this proceeding, thereby warranting a reopening of the record to permit litigation of those matters. Further, it would be inappropriate for the Staff to comment upon the significance j of these matters while the other parties to this proceeding are
- . unable to present their views.
1/ The Joint Intervenors also appear to assert that the Appeal Board's j . failure to resolve OI issues " prior to Waterford's licensing" has j somehow deprived them of a right et a hearing. See Petition at 2
! and 3-6. However, ALAE-81? was issued some seven months after low
- power operation was authorized and some four months after the Com-
- mission detennined to permit full power operation of the facility; j clearly, the issuance of ALAB-812 did not lead to the licensing of ,
- i j (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) .
) '
i i
i w, n-.- , - - , ._we ---,-,,,w,,,r: n-,,,.y_ , -, .g ,- -,, ,,---.,m-,c,p., ,r-.
.nnn , n,-. r1 g - -- _ , . , . , - ., ..p-ww3 ewe-,. p,.,pp, y
With respect to the asserted recent equipment failures at the facility, the Joint Intervenors have failed to establish, or even point to, a nexus between the asserted ' equipment failures and either the information which was presented in support of their motion to reopen or the reinspection and document review activities which were conducted by the Applicant; and they have clearly failed to establish how those matters reflect a failure by the Appeal Board properly to evaluate the acequacy of Applicant's reinspection and record review activities. The Staff dees not perceive that any nexus exists between the asserted equipment failures and Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen, nor do we perceive how those matters reflect the existence of any error on the part of the Appeal Board. Accordingly, these matters do n'ot warrant Commission review of ALAB-812.
In addition, the Joint Intervenors have failed to explain satis-factorily why these matters were not first brought to the attention of the Appeal Board prior to raising them in a petition for Comission review. The Joint Intervenors refer to four instances of asserted equipment failure, based upon the following sources of infonnation:
(1) a newspaper article dated May 13,1985;(2) an NRC Region IV pre-(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) the Waterford facility, and did not deprive'them of an opportunity l
'for a hearing prior to the issuance of the plant's license. Joint Intervenors' complaint in this regard indeed appears to be directed to the propriety of the Commission's prior licensing decisions (see, e.g., Petition at 6 and n.3); and their assertion that the AppeaT-Board's decision in ALAB-812 has somehow deprived them of a right to a hearing before the facility was licensed is incomprehensible and should be rejected.
1 I
. l liminary notification of event or unusual occurrence, dated May 13, '
1985; (3) a newspaper article dated June 4,1985; and (4) a newspaper i article dated July 23, 1985. No reason has been demonstrated as to why the Joint Intervenors failed to bring the first three of these items to the Appeal Board's attention prior to the issuance of ALAB-812. 7/-
Similarly, no reason has been presented as to why they could not have l brought the fourth item to the Appeal Board's attention after ALAB-812 J
was issued, such as in support of a motion for reconsideration, rather
- than raising the matter for the first time in a petition for Comission
- review. Inasmuch as the Joint Intervenors have not demonstrated why the asserted equipment failures could not have been brought initially I
to the attention of the Appeal Board, to the extent that their Petition 1
relies upon these matters, 10 C.F.R. ! 2.786(b)(4)(iii) requires that it be rejected. 8/ -
, Finally, the Joint Intervenors have requested that their Peti-tion be " construed as a Motion to Reopen the Record on their proposed
-7/ The sole explanation offered by the Joint Intervenors in this regard is as follows: "Because these events occurred after the submission of pleadings to the Appeal Board, Joint Intervenors had no opportunity to present this evidence to the Appeal Board."
. (Petition at 3). Clearly, the Joint Intervenors had every oppor-tunity to present new information to the Appeal Board in support of their motion to reopen, and their " explanation" in this regard is
. wholly unsatisfactory.
8] 10 C.F.R. 9 2.786(b)(4)(iii) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A petition for review will not be granted to the extent that it relies on matters that could have been but were not raised before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. . . .
.~ ,
character and competence contention on the ground of newly discovered evidence." (Petition at 8 n.6). However, the Joint Intervenors have altogether failed to address the requirements for reopening the record to consider such late-filed information, E and they have clearly failed
~
to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that thed.r presentation of these matters satisfies the standards governing motions to reopen.
Accordingly, their request that the Commission construe these matters as constituting a motion to reopen should be denied.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff submits that Joint Intervenors' Petition for review of ALAB-812 should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
. s fA l/
Sherwin E. Turk Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of August,1985 9/ The standards governing motions to reopen are succinctly set forth
. in ALAB-812, and may be summarized as follows. A motion to reopen "must be timely and address a significant safety or environmental issue. The motion must also show that a different result might have been reached had the newly proffered material been considered initially." In addition, the new material offered in support of the motion must be set forth with greater particularity than is )
required for the submission of contentions, and "must be tantamount to evidence." Further, a motion to reopen that raises previously uncontested issues must satisfy the standards for admitting late-filed contentions, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1). See !
ALAB-812, slip op. at 4-5. )
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )
4 Unit 3) )
, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO JOINT INTERVENORS' PETITION FOR REVIEW" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory
- Commission's internal rail system, this 19th day of August, 1985.
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard A. Wilber* Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.
Administrative Judge Monroe & Lemann 881 West Outer Drive 1424 Whitney Building Oak Ridge, TX 37830 New Orleans, LA 70130 Dr. Harry Foreman, Director E. Blake, Esq.
Administrative Judge B. Churchill, Esq.
. University of Minnesota Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Box 395, Mayo Trowbridge Minneapolis, MN 55455 180J M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Luke B. Fontana, Esq. Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
824 Esplanade Avenue Government Accountability Project New Orleans, LA 70116 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036
)
I' I
l
l
. Ian Ccuglas Lindsey, Esq. William J. Guste, Jr., Esq.
7434 Perkins Road Attorney General for the State Suite C Of Louisiana Baton Rouge, LA 70808 234 Loyola Avenue 7th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Brian P. Cassidy Regional Counsel, FEMA Carole H. Burstein, Esq.
John W. McCormack Post 445 Walnut Street Office and Courthouse New Orleans, LA 70118 Boston, MA 02109 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissicn Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section* Mr. Gary L. Groesch Office of the Secretary 2257 Bayou Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission New Orleans, LA 70119 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert D. Martin Samuel H. Chilk*
Regicnal Administrator, Region IV Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Parkway Central Plaza Building Washington, D.C. 20555 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Sherwin E. Turk Deputy Assistant Chief Fearing Counsel e