|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20149H0301997-06-19019 June 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communications Re Control Rod Insertion Problems ML20059C2351993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication ML20204G3081988-10-19019 October 1988 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000, Per 880506 Notice of Violation from Insp on 880301-17 ML20154K0301988-05-20020 May 1988 Transcript of 880520 Dicussion/Possible Vote in Rockville,Md Re Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-70.Related Info Encl ML20148G2161988-03-25025 March 1988 Decision.* Affirms Concluding Partial Initial Decision, LBP-87-14,25 NRC 461.Served on 880325 ML20149D8231988-02-0101 February 1988 Notice of Withdrawal.* Withdraws Appearance as Atty for Util in Proceeding,Effective 880201.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236A8341987-10-21021 October 1987 Transcript of 871021 Proceedings in Bethesda,Md.Pp 1-100 ML20235K8741987-09-30030 September 1987 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Pending Appeal of Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem from Board 870519 Concluding Partial Initial Decision in Proceeding Will Be Heard on 871021.Served on 871002 ML20235H7121987-09-25025 September 1987 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenor Appeal from ASLB Rejection of late-filed Contention Dismissed & LBP-87-19 & LBP-87-22 Vacated on Grounds of Mootness Due to Util Withdrawing Amend Application.Served on 870928 ML20237L7461987-09-0303 September 1987 Order.* Oral Argument on Pending Appeal of Intervenors Bl Rorem Et Al from Licensing Board 870519 Concluding Partial Initial Decision in OL Proceeding Will Be Heard on 871021 in NRC Public Hearing Room.Served on 870903 ML20237L7721987-09-0101 September 1987 Reconstitution of Aslab.* Notice That Aslab Has Been Reconstituted for OL Proceeding.Board Will Consist of as Rosenthal,Wr Johnson & Ha Wilber.Served on 870902 ML20237L6931987-08-28028 August 1987 Decision.* Review of Licensing Board 870513 & 0706 Partial Initial Decisions Revealed No Error Necessitating Corrective Action.Result Reached by Licensing Board Re Decision LBP-87-13 Affirmed.Served on 870831 ML20237K0361987-08-11011 August 1987 NRC Staff Brief in Support of LBP-87-14.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1101987-07-31031 July 1987 Brief of Comm Ed.* Brief Filed Re Appeal by Bridget Little Rorem,Et Al from ASLB 870519 Concluding Partial Initial Decision.Appeal Shoud Be Denied & Decision Affirmed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236N9791987-07-31031 July 1987 NRC Staff Response to Aslab Order of 870721.* NRC Supports Deferral of Briefing of Intervenors Appeal Until Applicant Affirmation Re Withdrawal of License Amend Application Received.Bc Hunsader Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N8851987-07-31031 July 1987 Response to Intervenors Request for Deferral of Further Appellate Proceedings.* Forwards Util to NRC Withdrawing License Amend Applications Re Ownership.Pending Appeal Should Be Dismissed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235Y8711987-07-23023 July 1987 Appeal from Licensing Board Denial of Motion to Reopen Record.* Intervenors Rorem Appeal from Decision of Licensing Board of 870706 Denying Rorem Motion to Reopen Record for Purpose of Admitting Late Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235Y9081987-07-21021 July 1987 Order.* Date for Filing Briefs Re Intervenor Appeal of Board 870706 Memorandum & Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration & Motion to Admit late-filed Contention Postponed Until Further Order by Board.Served on 870722 ML20234D0521987-07-0202 July 1987 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit late-filed Contention on Financial Qualifications.* Record Should Be Reopened Since Rule Barring case-by-case Financial Qualification Adjudication Not Applicable ML20235D6761987-07-0202 July 1987 Order.* Intervenors 870623 Motion That ASLB Reconsider 870610 Memorandum & Order Denying 870506 Motion to Reopen Record & 870701 Motion to Admit late-filed Contention Denied.Motion in Alternative Dismissed.Served on 870707 ML20234D0961987-07-0101 July 1987 Affidavit of DW Cassel.* Affidavit Re Intervenors Rorem,Et Al Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Late Filed Contention on Financial Qualification.Related Info Encl.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20216J8821987-07-0101 July 1987 Motion in Alternative Before Appeal Board.* Intervenors Hold That Jurisdiction Over 870701 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Late Filed Contention on Financial Qualifications Remains W/Aslb.W/Svc List & Certificate of Svc ML20234D0361987-07-0101 July 1987 Opening Brief of intervenors-appellants Bridget Little Rorem,Et Al.* Board Majority Committed Errors of Fact & Law That Compel Reversal of 870519 Concluding Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl CLI-87-07, Order CLI-87-07.* ASLB Concluding Partial Initial Decision, Resolving All Contested Issues & Authorizing NRR to Issue Ol,Reviewed by Commission & Effective Immediately.Separate Views of Commissioner Asselstine Encl.Served on 8707011987-06-30030 June 1987 Order CLI-87-07.* ASLB Concluding Partial Initial Decision, Resolving All Contested Issues & Authorizing NRR to Issue Ol,Reviewed by Commission & Effective Immediately.Separate Views of Commissioner Asselstine Encl.Served on 870701 ML20235A7271987-06-30030 June 1987 Transcript of 870630 Discussion/Possible Vote in Washington, DC Re Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-70.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20216D1941987-06-22022 June 1987 Order.* Amend to 861107 Protective Order Which Resolved Dispute Between ASLB & Commission Ofc of Investigation Over Disclosure of Certain Investigatory Matls.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 870623 ML20215J8891987-06-19019 June 1987 Applicant Texas Utils Electric Co Petition for Directed Certification of Licensing Board Order of 870312.* Brief Supports Granting Petition to Vacate ASLB 870312 Order. Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D9241987-06-15015 June 1987 Memorandum on Licensing Board Jurisdiction.* Jurisdiction Over Intervenors 870506 Motion Retained Until Further Action of Licensing Board Due to Util 870528 Filing of Application for Amend to Ol.Served on 870616 ML20214W9601987-06-12012 June 1987 Transcript of 870612 Telcon in Washington,Dc.Pp 18,585- 18,596 ML20214W5031987-06-10010 June 1987 Memorandum & Order (Denying Intervenors Motion to Admit late-filed Contentions on Financial Qualifications).* Rorem, Et Al 870506 Motion Re Financial Qualifications of New co- Licensees Denied for Want of Jurisdiction.Served on 870611 ML20214W5491987-06-0909 June 1987 Notice of Reconstitution of Board.* Iw Smith,Chairman & Rf Cole & AD Callihan,Members.Served on 870610 ML20214W4911987-06-0909 June 1987 Order.* ASLB 870513 Partial Initial Decision Addressing Emergency Planning Issues Will Be Reviewed Sua Sponte & Will Not Be Deemed Final Until Further Order.No Appeal from Decision Received ML20214P0811987-06-0101 June 1987 Notice of Appeal.* Intervenor Bl Rorem,By Attys & in Accordance w/10CFR2.762,appeal ASLB 870519 Concluding Partial Initial Decision Re Plant Which Served on Parties on 870521.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214N0521987-05-28028 May 1987 Affidavit of Mj Wallace.* Affidavit of Mj Wallace Re Startup & Initial Criticality of Unit 1.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214N0471987-05-28028 May 1987 Affidavit of Jc Bukovski.* Affidavit of Jc Bukovski Re Delay in Startup,Testing & Commercial Operation of Unit 1 ML20214N0421987-05-28028 May 1987 Commonwealth Edison Co Comments to Commission on Immediate Effectiveness Issues.* Forwards Affidavits of Mj Wallace & Jc Bukovski.Requests Opportunity to Be Heard If Commission Contemplates Such Stay ML20214N4321987-05-26026 May 1987 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Admit late-filed Contention on Financial Qualifications.* Board Must Deny Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Deny Request to Certify Question of Waiver to Commission.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214N3901987-05-22022 May 1987 Amend to Concluding Partial Initial Decision.* Amends 870519 Concluding Initial Decision to Delete Limited Authorization Granted NRR to Issue License for Low Power Testing,Due to Issuance of LBP-87-13 on 870513.Served on 870526 ML20214N0631987-05-19019 May 1987 Errata Correction.* Requests Pen & Ink Corrections to Minority Decision Pages Forwarded as Corrected Pages to Errata .Pages 73,74 & 75 Should Be Numbered as Pages 72,73 & 74,respectively.Served on 870529 ML20214N0851987-05-19019 May 1987 Errata.* Forwards Corrected Pages to Minority Opinion, Matters of Dissent.Served on 870528 ML20214G5141987-05-19019 May 1987 Response to Intervenor Motion Seeking to Reopen Record for Admission of New Contention.* Intervenor Filed Motion, Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention on Financial Qualifications. Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214N3431987-05-19019 May 1987 Errata to Concluding Partial Initial Decision (Ol).* Minor Editoral Corrections Listed.Served on 870528 ML20214G5921987-05-19019 May 1987 Concluding Partial Initial Decision (Ol).* Due to Violation Re Discouragement to Document Any Major Deficiency That Could Result in Lengthy Delay in Production,Civil Penalty Should Be Imposed on Comstock & Util.Served on 870521 ML20214G8701987-05-18018 May 1987 Notice of Reconstitution of Aslab.Gj Edles Chairman & WR Johnson & CN Kohl Members.Served on 870520 ML20213F9971987-05-13013 May 1987 Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning Issues.* ASLB Resolves All Outstanding Issues Re Offsite Emergency Favorably to Applicant Subj to Certain Info Being Included in Next Emergency Info Booklet.Served on 870514 ML20215K9991987-05-0606 May 1987 Motion to Admit late-filed Contention on Financial Qualifications.* Contention Based on Util 870406 Filing Re New Ownership & Financing for Facility.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214F1991987-04-22022 April 1987 Applicant Exhibit A-188,consisting of Admitting Exhibit.Util Re General Ofc Records Audit,Lk Comstock Engineering Co,Inc 830110 Memo Re Audit Responses & 821101 General Insp Rept Re Torque Wrench Test Record Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20236N8851987-07-31031 July 1987 Response to Intervenors Request for Deferral of Further Appellate Proceedings.* Forwards Util to NRC Withdrawing License Amend Applications Re Ownership.Pending Appeal Should Be Dismissed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236N9791987-07-31031 July 1987 NRC Staff Response to Aslab Order of 870721.* NRC Supports Deferral of Briefing of Intervenors Appeal Until Applicant Affirmation Re Withdrawal of License Amend Application Received.Bc Hunsader Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235Y8711987-07-23023 July 1987 Appeal from Licensing Board Denial of Motion to Reopen Record.* Intervenors Rorem Appeal from Decision of Licensing Board of 870706 Denying Rorem Motion to Reopen Record for Purpose of Admitting Late Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20234D0521987-07-0202 July 1987 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit late-filed Contention on Financial Qualifications.* Record Should Be Reopened Since Rule Barring case-by-case Financial Qualification Adjudication Not Applicable ML20216J8821987-07-0101 July 1987 Motion in Alternative Before Appeal Board.* Intervenors Hold That Jurisdiction Over 870701 Motion to Reopen Record to Admit Late Filed Contention on Financial Qualifications Remains W/Aslb.W/Svc List & Certificate of Svc ML20214N0421987-05-28028 May 1987 Commonwealth Edison Co Comments to Commission on Immediate Effectiveness Issues.* Forwards Affidavits of Mj Wallace & Jc Bukovski.Requests Opportunity to Be Heard If Commission Contemplates Such Stay ML20214N4321987-05-26026 May 1987 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Admit late-filed Contention on Financial Qualifications.* Board Must Deny Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Deny Request to Certify Question of Waiver to Commission.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214G5141987-05-19019 May 1987 Response to Intervenor Motion Seeking to Reopen Record for Admission of New Contention.* Intervenor Filed Motion, Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention on Financial Qualifications. Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K9991987-05-0606 May 1987 Motion to Admit late-filed Contention on Financial Qualifications.* Contention Based on Util 870406 Filing Re New Ownership & Financing for Facility.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211D6511987-02-18018 February 1987 Reply Brief of Applicant Comm Ed Co.* ASLB Should Find in Applicant Favor Re Intervenor Harassment Contention.Issuance of OL Recommended.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209H5831987-02-0303 February 1987 Intervenors Motion for Extension of Page Limit for Brief.* Despite Diligent Efforts Intervenors Have Been Unable to Achieve 75-page Goal.Extension Requested.Notice of Appearance of Rl Jones & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212R6911987-01-23023 January 1987 Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time.* Extension Until 870203 Requested for Filing Proposed Findings & Brief Due to Extraordinary Bulk of Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209J2861986-09-10010 September 1986 Motion Opposing Util Motion for Authorization of Fuel Loading & Precritical Testing.Util Unable to Show Compliance W/Regulatory Requirements Re Electrical Aspects of Sys Involved.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209G3291986-09-0909 September 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860818 Motion for Authorization of Fuel Loading & Precritical Testing.Aslb Should Issue Decision Finding That Pending Contentions W/O Relevance to Fuel Loading ML20212M7141986-08-22022 August 1986 Motion Moving for Order in Limine,Barring All Parties, Including Counsel & Witnesses,From Submitting Evidence Re NRC Internal Administration of Duties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203L6991986-08-21021 August 1986 Brief Supporting ASLB Decisions to Compel Disclosure of Relevant Documents from Ofc of Investigations Files & Issue Deposition Subpoena.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214K7371986-08-18018 August 1986 Motion for Authorization of Fuel Loading & Precritical Testing Based on Encl Affidavits Demonstrating That Pending Comstock Harassment Contentions Irrelevant to Testing Activities ML20205F3091986-08-14014 August 1986 Brief Concerning Pending Matter of Ofc of Investigations. Applicant Not Privy to Info Sought to Be Disclosed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203K1261986-07-30030 July 1986 Motion for Reconsideration of Admission of Issue Re Rd Hunter Termination.Issue Should Be Dismissed on Ground That Circumstances Show Issue Lacks Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203F8661986-07-29029 July 1986 Motion Opposing ASLB 860722 Notice of Intent to Require Disclosure Under Protective Order Based on Disclosure Interfering W/Ongoing Investigation & Compromising Confidential Source.Served on 860729 ML20207H7211986-07-21021 July 1986 Response Opposing Rorem Et Al Motion for Subpoena & late- Filed Contention.Issues Raised by Subpoena Irrelevant & Contention Fails to Satisfy five-factor Balancing Test ML20207B6191986-07-14014 July 1986 Opposition to Intervenor Motion for Disclosure of Relevant Documents from Ofc of Investigations.Relevant Documents Must Be Withheld to Avoid Compromising Ongoing Investigation. Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202F8811986-07-10010 July 1986 Motion for Subpoena for T Corcoran to Testify in Hearing,To Rule Corcoran 830801 Allegations Relevant to Harassment Contention & to Admit Addl late-filed Corcoran Contention as Exhibit A.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20199K8601986-07-0101 July 1986 Response in Opposition to Intervenor 860623 Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention.Contention Lacks Basis & Specificity & Fails to Make Adequate Showing on Five Factors for Admission Required by 10CFR2.714(b) ML20206P6971986-06-25025 June 1986 Intervenors Rorem Et Al Motion for Disclosure of Relevant Documents from Ofc of Investigations Re QC Allegations at Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20206J2311986-06-23023 June 1986 Motion to Admit Encl late-filed Contention on Overstress of Structural Columns.Requests ASLB Defer Ruling on Admission of Contention Pending Initial NRC Rept on Anonymous Allegations Received on 860623.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211E1201986-06-0606 June 1986 Response Opposing Intervenor 860527 Motion to Admit Addl late-filed Harassment & Intimidation Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211D8401986-06-0505 June 1986 Brief in Opposition to Admission of Parkhurst 860527 Contention of Alleged Harassment.Intervenors Rorem Et Al Unjustifiably Late in Proposing Addl Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20195E7651986-06-0303 June 1986 Intervenors Rorem,Et Al Response to Applicant Motion in Limine - Puckett Settlement Agreement.Rule 408 Should Not Be Applied.Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20198J5841986-05-27027 May 1986 Motion to Admit Addl late-filed Harassment & Intimidation Contentions of B Parkhurst & Rd Hunter.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155J9881986-05-22022 May 1986 Answer to Applicant Motion for Reformation of Commission 860321 Order,Sanitizing Language Critical of Applicant. Criticism of Applicant Not Dicta But Central to Result of 860321 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155J9801986-05-22022 May 1986 Motion for Leave to File Instanter Encl Answer to Applicant Motion for Reformation of Commission 860505 Order.Reasons Included Applicant 860505 Motion Filed 45 Days After Svc of Commission 860321 Order & on Eve of Evidentiary Hearings ML20204A4251986-05-0707 May 1986 Response Opposing Intervenor Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Prefiled Direct Testimony of L Seese.Intervenor Objections Not Well Founded or Supportable & Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20203P8361986-05-0505 May 1986 Motion for Reformation of Commission 860320 Order Per Revs in Attachment A,To Amend Language of Majority Opinion Commenting on Applicant Conduct of proceedings.Marked-up 860320 Order Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203P8581986-05-0202 May 1986 Motion for Clarification & Reconsideration of 860429 Memorandum Confirming Order Denying Access to Protected Matls & to Direct Intervenor to Furnish Matls Subj to Terms of 851206 Protective Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G8061986-05-0202 May 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860415 Motion to Require Intervenors to File Offers of Proof.Offers Should Describe Facts & Conclusions Expected to Be Introduced as Part of Affirmative Case.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G7361986-05-0202 May 1986 Response Supporting,In Part,Applicant 860425 Motion in Limine-Puckett Settlement Agreement.Aslb Should Rule That Evidence Re Agreement Inadmissible to Prove Fault or Liability.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G7891986-05-0101 May 1986 Motion to Exclude & Sequester Fact Witnesses So Testimony of Other Witnesses Cannot Be Heard.Hearing on Intervenor QC Inspector Harassment Contention Will Involve Conflicting Renditions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G7921986-04-30030 April 1986 Response Opposing Applicant Motion to Require Intervenors to File Offers of Proof.Applicant Already Has Ample Notice of Subj Matters to Be Addressed in Witness Testimony. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G7141986-04-30030 April 1986 Brief Supporting Admissibility of late-filed Contention Alleging QC Inspector Harassment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G6281986-04-30030 April 1986 Brief Opposing Admission of Subcontention 2.C,per Commission 860424 Order Directing ASLB to Separately Apply 10CFR2.714 Test to Subcontention.Admission of Subcontention Would Delay Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G5791986-04-29029 April 1986 Response in Support of Applicant 860425 Motion to Dismiss Intervenor Contention 1(a) Re Offer of Proof Issues 3,4 & 6 & Contention 1(b).Intervenor Failed to File Proposed Findings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205N6531986-04-28028 April 1986 Motion to Strike Portions of Applicants Prefiled Testimony Submitted by R Kurtz,Jr Vannier,T Maiman & L Seese Re Contention 2.C. & at Simile Re Rorem Subcontention 2.C. Related Correspondence ML20205N6711986-04-28028 April 1986 Motion to Strike Portions of Applicants Prefiled Testimony Submitted by R Mendez,Jh Neisler & Ws Little Re B Little Rorem,Et Al Subcontention 2.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210L3711986-04-25025 April 1986 Motion Requesting ASLB Enter Order Barring All Parties from Making Any Ref To,Or Submitting Any Evidence Of,Settlement Agreement Between WO Puckett & Comstock Engineering During Licensing Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210K6711986-04-25025 April 1986 Motion to Dismiss Contention 1(a) Re Offer of Proof Issues 3,4 & 6 & Contention 1(b).Intervenor Proposed Findings on Emergency Planning Issues Did Not Address Contentions. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155F6031986-04-15015 April 1986 Motion to Require Bl Rorem to File Offers of Proof & Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Related Correspondence ML20141D7891986-04-0303 April 1986 Brief Addressing Question Whether Intervenor Amended QA Contention Meets five-part Test for Admission of late-filed Contention,Per Commission 860320 Order.Commission Should Reverse ASLB 850621 Order Admitting Contention ML20140J0981986-04-0202 April 1986 Response to Commission 860320 Order Re Intervenors Amended QA Contention.Aslb Incorrectly Applied five-part Test of 10CFR2.714 in Admitting Amended QA Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140G0571986-03-28028 March 1986 Motion to Correct Transcript of 860311-12 Emergency Planning Hearings,As Listed.W/Certificate of Svc 1987-07-31
[Table view] |
Text
(SM ausum cc.wmuom o September 23, 1985 ED ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *d3 ggp BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD All :23 Ch 1lTr$, YCh n -
In the Matter of ) -
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-4564
}i 50-4570L (Braidwood Station, Units I and 2 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM APPLICANT AND THE NRC STAFF I. INTRODUCTION On September 4,1985, Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al.
("Intervenors") filed a motion to compel answers to certain i
interrogatories from Applicant and Staff. In their motion Intervenors sought responses to Interrogatories 17, 20 and 57. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
5 2.730(c), the NRC Staff hereby opposes that portion of "Intervenors' Motion to Compel Discovery From Applicant and the NRC Staff" (" Motion")
which applies to the Staff on the grounds that Intervenors have failed to meet their burden under NRC Regulations. Intervenors failed to demonstrate that (1) the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence or (2) it is relevant to the issues before this Board, or (3) the answers are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and (4) are not reasonably obtainable from any other. source. 10 C.F.R. 6 2.720(h) . (2)(ii). In addition to its opposition to Intervenors' Motion, the Staff requ'ests that the Board l
l 8509250349 B50923 PDR ADOCK 05000456 Q PDR T)S 07 - ..
. issue the protective order requested in Staff's July 30, 1985 " Motion for a Protective Order."
II. BACKGROUND On July 2, 1985, Intervenors served "Rorem, et al. Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, First Set" [QA Interrogatories]
on Applicant Commorwealth Edison Company and the NRC Staff. On the same date Rorem filed "Intervenors' Motion to Require NRC Staff Answers to I
-Interrogatories" [ July Motion]. On July 30, 1985, the NRC Staff filed its objections to certain QA Interrogatories and the July Motion as well as a Motion for a Protective Order concerning each interrogatory to which it had objected. "NRC Staff Objections To Interrogatories And Motion For A Protective Order". [hereinafterObjections]. In its response the Staff stated that, in order to expedite this proceeding, the Staff would attempt to answer certain interrogatories. However, the Staff specifically stated that it did not waive the right to object to any interrogatories it believed merited objection. (Objections at 3).
The Staff has provided responses to those QA Interrogatories to which it did not object. As stated in the Staff's September 3, 1985 status report, based on an August 14, 1985 meeting with Intervenor and Applicant to resolve discovery disputes, the Staff voluntarily agreed to supplement some of its earlier responses and provide responses to several
'1terrogatories to which it had originally objected.
On September 4, 1985, Porem, filed "Intervenors' Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant and the NRC Staff" seeking a Board order to compel responses to Interrogatories 17, 20 and 57 by the NRC Staff and 1
l t
responses to numerous interrogatories from the Applicant. For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes this Motion insofar as it relates to the Staff.
III. DISCUSSION A. Standards for Discovery Against the Staff In general,10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b)(1) limits discovery to "those matters in controversy which have been identified by . . . the presiding officer in the prehearing order. . . ." The regulations further require that "the information sought appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1).
Where the Staff is concerned, " discovery against the Staff is on a 4
different footing" than discovery against other parties. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980). Most Staff records and documents relevant to
, licensing proceedings are by regulation made available for inspection and copying in the NRC.Public Document Room. 10 C.F.R. G 2.790(a).
TheAppealBoardinSusquehannacitingCommissionpolicyandprocedure1/
observed that "[t]he contemplation is that these 'should reasonably i
disclose the basis for the staff's position' thereby reducing any need i
1/ 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A.IV.(d) states in pertinent part:
In general, staff documents that are relevant to a proceeding will be publicly available as a matter of course unless there is a compelling justifica-tion for their nondisclosure.
t
for formal discovery." Susquehanna, ALAB-613 supra at 313. In further-ance of this policy Commission regulations governing discovery against the Staff require a "findino by the presiding officer that answers to the
' interrogatories'are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source" before the Staff is required to answer written inter-rogatories. 10 C.F.R. I 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
Commission regulations require that motions to compel discovery must set forth (1) the nature of the questions or the request, (2) the response or objection of the party upon whom the request was served and (3) arguments in support of the motion. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(f)(1). It is i
- well established that the moving party has the burden of proving that its
- motion should be granted. Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-77-2, 5 NRC 13, 14 (1977).
B. NRC Staff Objection to Specific Interrogatory 20 and Lack of Argument by Intervenors are Sufficient to Justify Denial of Intervenors' Motion and Issuance of a Protective Order In its July 30, 1985 Objection, the Staff objected to answering Interrogatory 20 2/ stating that "this information is directly known to 2/ Interrogatory 20 reads:
Please identify in detail all documents, including correspondence, reports, minutes of meetings or notes of oral conversations, reflecting disagree-i ments, disputes or differences of opinion between j Quality Control Inspectors and their supervisors or (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1
l . .
t
- Applicant, who is therefore the appropriate source for the requested i information." (Objectionat8). The Staff reasoned that "the l
information sought pertains to Applicant's organizations and activities."
(Objectionat3). "Therefore, the information requested should be readily known to Applicant." M. "[T]he infonnation sought is reasonably available from sources other than the Staff, namely the Applicant or publicly available NRC inspection reports . . . and the t
- Staff objects to [it] on that basis." M.
I In the introductory portion of their Motion, Intervenors assert that !
l the Staff's objection to Interrogatory 20 is " invalid." Motion at 3.
~
Intervenars' Motion does not set forth the nature of the interrogatory as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(f)(1). Not a single supporting argument is presented by Intervenors in support of their position. The basis for Intervenors' belief that the Staff objection is invalid remains unknown to all but the Intervenors. In short Intervenors have failed to demon-strate that the answer to Interrogatory 20 is either "necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding" and that the information is "not reasonably obtainable from any other source." 10 C.F.R.
52.720(h)(2)(ii).
1 l
i i
^
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVICUS PAGE)
Commonwealth Edison or its contractors' management.
Include the subject, date, names of persons involved and resolution foe each instance so -
l reflected.
l u
(
-. -. . - _ - - . , ~ - . . _ _ , - . - _. .
Thus, Intervenors, the moving party, have not met their burden of proof and the motion to compel discovery of Interrogatory 20 should be denied and a protective order entered.
C. NRC Staff Objections to Specific Interrogatories 17 and 57 are Sufficient to Overcome Intervenors' Assertions that the Interrogatories Raise Mixed Questions of Fact and Law and that the Responses Would Focus the Issues in the Case
- 1. I_nterrogatory 17 The Staff objected to answering Interrogatory 17 I stating ~that it was not the appropriate source for the requested information. (Objection at 7). The Staff reasoned that Intervenors had not demonstrated that the answer was both necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and not reasonably cbtainable from any other :,ource. (Objection at 2).
Intervenors contend that Interrogatory 17 raises questions of the
" application of law to fact," (Motion at 6) and as such -- quoting the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-cedure - "can be most useful in narrowing and sharpening the issues..."
(Motion at 6). Intervenors' quote from the Advisory Comittee goes on to say that " interrogatories may not extend to issues of ' pure law,' i.e.,
legal issues unrelated to the facts of the case." I d_.
The Staff contends that Interrogatory 17 does not relate to any questions of fact which are ripe for discovery. Indeed, Interrogatory 17 3/ Interrogatory 17 reads:
Please describe in detail tne circumstances and procedures, if any, under which Quality Control inspection criteria may be waived.
i is so broad and ambiguous that the Staff is unable to determine what exactly is being asked. In the Staff's view the interrogatory does not even mention Braidwood. Any response to such a vague interrogatory cannot be necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding.
In addition to propounding an incomprehensible interroCatory, 1 1
Intervenors mischaracterize the Staff's objection. Although Intervenors' !
Motion discusses recent expansion of Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of i
Civil Procedure concerning mixed questions of law and fact, Intervenors j l do not attempt to demonstrate that any question of fact concernir.g the i
- application of inspection criteria at Braidwood exists. The stringency 1 of the application of the criteria and "the circumstances and procedures .
I for waiver of such criteria (Motion at 5) appear to be pure legal ques- i tions and not questions of fact. Even if Interrogatory 17 were inter-preted to raise an issue of fact, the Intervenors have not demonstrated how the interrogatory narrows and. sharpens the issues.
j Pursuant to the Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(1),
j the party seeking discovery of information which would not be admissible i
j as evidence has the burden of demonstrating that the information sought t
is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
, See Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 J and2),LBP-82-33,15NRC887,890-91(1982); Illinois Power Company j (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-61, 15 NRC 1735, 1741 (1981).
i Intervenors failed to demonstrate that any informatirn elicited would be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
Furthermore, Intervenors do not present any argument as to why the 1
l i
. . - - - , . -, .-- . - , -, . - , - - . - - - , - . , - . , . - - _ . - - - . ~ . _ - . _ . , . - - . - , . . - . - - - . .
response is necessary to a proper decision. Intervenors simply assert without any supporting argument that the circumstances under which inspection criteria $/ are waived or applied are " plainly relevant and discoverable subjects."
Even if Interrogatory 17 was sufficiently narrowed and imbued with reasonable specificity and could be reasonably calculated to lead to 1
admissible evidence, Intervenors failed to meet their burden to demon-strate that-the information was not reasonably obtainable from any other I source. Intervenors' arguments are insufficient to overcome the Staff's 1
i objection to Interrogatory 17 and the Motion to compel discovery of
! Interrogatory 17 should be denied and a protective order entered.
i I i
l 2. Interrogatory 57 ,
The Staff's objection to Interrogatory 57 5/ was grounded on its belief that it was (1) not recessary to a proper decision in this pro-
- ceeding, (2) irrelevant, (3) not reasonably calculated to lead to the "
discovery of admissible evidence, and (4) seeking a legal opinion on the ,
-4/ While Intervenors attempt to define the term " inspection criterie" by "like terms" in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B an examination of Appendix B, Criterion V and X by the Staff did not clarify this i term.
6
, 5/ Interrogatory 57 reads:
4 In what respects are NRC requirements understood to '
i be either minimum or maximum requirements with
] regard to the design and construction of Braidwood? -
i Please explain in detail and identify any documents which reflect this answer.
9 I
i l
. i scope of NRC requirements without any showing as to the relevance'of such i legal opinion to the admitted contention. (Objection at 12),
i In support cf their Motion, Intervenors once again assert that the l
interrogatory raises a mixed question of fact and law and is thus within l the scope of discovery as embodied in Federal Rule 33(b). Intervenors do not suggest what the question of fact might be nor do they present any
, argun.ent to the effect that the answer is necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. 10 C.F.R. % 2.720(h)(2)(ii). Once again, the l interrogatory does not even mention the Braidwood Station or any of the factual allegations contained in the quality assurance contention. j Although Intervenors generally contend that " responses to these i
interrogatories will significantly advance the conduct of this proceeding i by focusing and narrowing the issue in dispute", (Motion at 5), ,
Intervenors neglect to provide or discuss the basis for this contention, j Intervenors interpret the question as a request for "information on the respects in which NRC requirements are understood . . . to be either i maximum . . . or minimum requirements . . . a description of the margin of error for deficient workmanship . . . and the relationship between ;
l
! site imposed acceptance criteria and NRC requirements, where different."
i j Intervenors describe a scenario and claim their entitlement "to probe 4 this anticipated defense through discovery" (Motion at 9) without
- discussing how this might be relevant to the issues before the Board or !
] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
l 10C.F.R.52.740(b)(1).
1 The Staff believes that Interrogatory 57 calls for a legal opinion I which is in no way related to the admitted contention and is thus rot ;
1
4 properly a subject of discovery. Even if this was not an issue of pure '
1 j law, Intervenors have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate how i
Interrogatory 57 is related to a matter in controversy or that it narrows 2
- sharpens the issues or how a response would be reasonably calculated i
to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. In short, Intervenors have 4
not met their burden as the moving party to overcome the Staff's objec-
- tions. Thus, their Motion should be denied and a protective order
! entered.
i i III. CONCLUSION t
l For the reasons discussed above, Intervenors have not met their burden under the Commission's regulations to overcome the Staff's objec- r i
l tions to Interrogatories 17, 20 and 57. Intervenor's Motion to Compel should be denied in its entirety and Staff's Motion for Protective Order for Interrogatories 17, 20 and 57 should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, 4 .
i Elaine I. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland i i
this 23rd day of September,1985
- 1 I
s I
i i
4
- -- . _ _ . - _ _ - . -- -- _ - _ - _ - - _ _ ~ _ - _ .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
- In the Matter of )
! )
i COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-456 50-457 i (Braidwood Station, Units I and 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' l
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM APPLICANT AND THE NRC STAFF" in the I 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 mail system, this 23rd day of September,1985:
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman
- Commonwealth Edison Company Administrative Judge ATTN: Cordell Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 767 Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60690 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Region III, ,
Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 102 Oak Lane Office of Inspection & Enforcement Oak Ridge, TN 37830 799 Roosevelt Road Dr. Richard F. Cole
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 840
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
- Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 4
Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq. Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman *
, Istam, Lincoln & Beale Administrative Judge
! Three First National Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
. Suite 5200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn l Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, DC 20555 k
f
- ,, ._ % -m , - -.-
_ _ _ , . . <--y, , , - - - , , , , - - - , , - , _ , , . . . . . _ _ < . . , ,
, e i
Ms. Bridget Little Rorem C. Allen. Bock, Esq.
4 117 North Linden Street P.O. Box 342 Essex, IL 60935 Urbana, Il 61801 l Douglass W. Cassel, Jr., Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
, Timothy Wright, Esq. Panel
- 109 North Dearborn Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1300 Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60602 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Erie Jcnes, Director Board Panel
- Illinois Emergency Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- and Disaster Agency Washington, DC 20555
, 110 East Adams Springfield, IL 62705 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Lorraine Creek U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 182 Washington, DC 20555 Manteno, IL 60950 i
H. Joseph'F.lynn, Esq.
Associate General Counsel FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, DC 20740 Elaine I. Chan i Counsel for NRC Staff i
i i
l I
i i
i
, . _ , . , - - - - ~ ,- , ,,..-..,,n , , - , - . , . . - , . , , , , , , , - , - . . p - -..J. , - . .