ML20138M605
| ML20138M605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1985 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-529 ALAB-817, OL, NUDOCS 8512230063 | |
| Download: ML20138M605 (20) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNl$[cU NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
'85 DEC 19 P4 :40 In'the Matter of
[.f[c[;[$dsj/fjy/
BRANCH COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )
6 b NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION'S DECEMBER 5, 1985 ORDER Stuart A. Treby Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
[
Decc=ber 19, 1985 l
8512230063 851219 DR ADOCK 0500 6
m ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA R$E/c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
'85 DEC 19 P4:41
-In the Matter of
)
{
. [.k','j COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSIOh'S DECEMBER 5, 1985 ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION On December 5,1985, the Conunission issued an order in the above-captioned proceeding in which it directed the parties to respond to seven questions propounded therein. December 5,1985 Order, slip op, at 3-4.
According to the Consnission, responses to these questions are necessary "to determine whether it would be productive for the Commission to under-takereviewofALAB-817."1/ In ALAB-817, the Appeal Poard by a 2-1 majority, denied a request by Applicant for directed certification of a 2/
ruling by the Licensing Board permitting Intervenor to depose a named NRC Staff official for the purpose of enabling Intervenor to cure the defects in its previously rejected quality assurance contention. The Staff's responses to the Coninission's questions are set forth below.
u
-1/
Comonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-817, 22 NRC 470 (1985).
2/
Special Prehearing Conference Order, LBP-85-11, 21 NRC 609 (1985).
r' II. DISCUSSION 1.
Why, given the apparent violation of 10 C.F.R. 56 2.720(h) and 2.740(b), did the Staff not seek, before the amended QA contention was admitted, Appeal Board or Commission review of the Licensing Board's Order (LBP-85-11) allowing the deposition of Mr. Keppler?
A fair review of the record belies any suggestion that the Staff acceded without objection to the Licensing Board's ruling permitting Intervenors to depose Mr. Keppler.
In fact, promptly-after the issuance of the Licensing Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order, LBP-85-11, the Staff petitioned the Licensing Board to reconsider its ruling adopting extraordinary procedures for the resubmittal of a quality assurance con-tention by the Intervenors. See NRC Staff Objection To and Motion for Reconsideration of Special Prehearing Conference Order Dated April 17, 1985 (May 6, 1985) [ hereinafter Staff Objections]. 2/ Specifically, the Staff noted that permitting discovery before a contention was admitted was contrary to 10 C.F.R. % 2.740(b)(1) and Commission case law. Staff Objection at 7.
Further, the Staff ciscussed the Limerick decision cited by the Licensing Board to show that the rulings in that proceeding were not applicable to the facts in this case.
Ibid at 7, n.9.
The Applicant also promptly moved the Licensing Board for recon-sideration of its rulings concerning the extraordinary procedures developed by the Licensing Board to allow Intervenors to amend their contention.
" Applicant's Objections To Board Order" dated April 29, 1985
-3/
The Staff also sought reconsideration of the Licensing Board's analysis of factors iii and v of 10 C.F.R. ! 2.714(a) governing contentions filed out of time.
[ hereinafter Applicant's Objections). Applicant principally argued that the Licensing Board's action was tantamount to the conditional admission of a contention, a course of action found by the Appeal Board to be contrary te the terms and history of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a). Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460,466-67(1982); Applicant's Objections at 9.
In its Special Prehearing Conference Order, the Licensing Board stated:
[H]ad the Intervenors not proposed to make Mr. Keppler's testimony the foundation of a formal issue in the proceeding, the Board intended to obtain detailed information from the Staff with respect to Mr. Keppler's testimony and other concerns the Staff may harbor about Braidwood's QA/QC program and its implementation. Our efforts to gain a more complete understanding of Mr. Keppler's statements would have enabled us to determine if the facts and data undergirding his comments merited our raising a QA/QC issue on a sua sponte basis as an evidentiary hearing.
21 NRC at 634.
Both Applicant and Staff noted in their petitions for reconsideration that the Licensing Board could inquire about the Appli-cant's QA/QC program to determine if the Board desired to raise the quality assurance issue as a sua sponte issue, but that it was inappro-priate for the Board to use Intervenors as its surrogate in gathering information. Applicant's Objections at 11-12; Staff's Objections at 8.
Finally, the Staff notes that Applicant sought referrol of the Licensing Board's ruling to the Appeal Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(f).
Applicant's Objections at 13.
At this point in the proceeding, Staff and Applicant had taken all appropriate steps to seek relief from the Licensing Board's Order.
It was not until the Intervenors' May 9, 1985 motion for extension of time to file an amended QA/QC contention and the May 10, 1985 conference call among the parties and the Licensing Board to discuss Intervenors' motion that the Staff learned that intervenors intended to carry out the Licensing Board's suggestion and that they depose Mr. Keppler and other Staff members and that the Licensing Board was not going to rule on the petitions for reconsideration until after such deposition. With these facts and developments in the proceeding, the only remaining option available to the Staff was to seek interlocutory appellate review of the Licensing Board's order.
In considering this option, the Staff was mindful of the admonition
/
of the Appeal Board in Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-742, 18 NRC 380, 383-84 (1983) for parties to exercise a large measure of circumspection insofar as requests for interlocutory appellate review are concerned. O As noted 4j The Appeal Board stated:
In short, the parties to our licensing proceedings might well exercise in the future a greater measure of circumspection insofar as requests for interlocu-tory appellate review are concerned.
Understandably, parties and their counsel are displeased whenever a licensing board enters an interlocutory order that appears to affect their interests adversely and, in their judgment, is plainly wrong to boot.
But, to repeat what we have said on so many prior occasions, in the overwhelming majority of instances the party simply must await the licensing board's initial decision before bringing its complaint to us (assuming that the grievance has not been mooted by intervening developments).
Palo Verde, 18 NRC at 384
4,
above, the facts existing immediately prior to Mr. Keppler's deposition were that while no QA/QC contention had been admitted as a matter in controversy, discovery was being permitted against a named NRC Staff official concerning statements he had made in the public record.
In these circumstances, while the Commission's rules of practice appeared to be violated, one could not conclude that the Staff was irreparably injured in a manner that could not be alleviated by a later appeal.
Moreover, until a QA/QC contention was admitted by the Licensing Board there was only a procedural error in the Licensing Board's ruling and it would have been a question of speculation whether such error would have a pervasive or unusual effect on the basic structure of the proceeding. El For example, even if Mr. Keppler was deposed there was no surety that Intervenors would file an amended QA/QC contention or that, even if such contention was filed, it would be admitted by the Licensing Board.
For these reasons, in the Staff's view there was little likelihood that the Appeal Board would grant directed certification and, in any event, the error could be raised on appeal after the Licensing Board issued its initial decision. When in fact the Licensing Board did admit the QA/QC i
5/
In deciding whether to exercise its discretionary directed certifi-cation authority, the Appeal Board applies the two-part Marble Hill test as to whether a licensing board ruling either (1) threatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alle-viated by a later appeal, or (2) affects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.
See e.g. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-791, 20 NRC 1579, 1582 (1984); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977).
contention and it no longer was a matter of speculation but of fact that the extraordinary procedures crafted by the Licensing Board would have a pervasive or unusual effect en the structure of the proceeding, a motion was filed seeking directed certification by the Appeal Board. 6_/ The Appeal Board, by a 2-1 majority denied the motion for directed certification holding that "the basic structure of an ongoing adjudication is not changed simply because the admission of a contention results from a licensing board ruling that... may conflict with case law, policy, or Commissian regulations." 22 NRC at 474.
(footnote omitted) Thus, even in hindsight, the Staff's appraisal of the likelihood of success in having the Appeal Board grant directed certification appears accurate.
Notwithstanding the Staff's view that the facts existing immediately prior to Mr. Keppler's deposition did not warrant at that time an appeal to the Appeal Board or Commission, subsequent facts have resulted in the Staff supporting and continuing to support a motion for directed certification 7/
following the Licensing Board's rulings denying reconsideration and admitting Intervenors' amended quality assurance contention. NRC Staff Response to Applicants' Moticn for Directed Certification (July 23, 1985). After deposing Mr. Kepoler and another Staff official from Region III, Mr. Warnick, on May 20, 1985 and May 23, 1985, the Intervenors sub-mitted an amended quality assurance contention on May 24, 1985.
" Motion
-6/
" Motion for Directed Certification" (July 8, 1985) and "NRC Staff Response To Applicant's Motion For Directed Certification" (July 23, 1985).
-7/
Memorandum and Order Admitting Rorem, et al Amended Quality Assurance Contention, LBP-85-20, 21 NR'C 1732 (1985).
9.
To Admit Amended Quality Assurance Contention" (May 24,1985). A review of Intervenors' amended contention demonstrates that, except for a portion of paragraph 2 relating to harassment and intimidation, the bases and specificity provided for Intervenors' amended quality assurance contention came from documents available to them in the public domain before they filed their original contention.
It appears, therefore, that Intervenors first began to utilize the data from publicly available NRC inspection reports to particularize their concerns in their preparation to depose Messrs. Keppler and Warnick. By developing the extraordinary procedures in its Special Prehearing Conference Order, the Licensing Board allowed Intervenors to shirk their burden to uncover all publicly available infor-mation diligently and to apply that information to the prompt formulation of contentions admissible pursuant to 10 C.F.R. G 2.714 of the Commission regulations. See Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1048 (1983). The extraordinary procedures permitted Intervenors another opportunity to review publicly available information and to engage in discovery with named staff members
. to confirm that information and then resubmit an amended contention on a quality assurance issue based on this "second effort." E
-8/
The Intervenors could, of course, have filed a late contention based on the publicly available Staff documents without benefit of the improper procedure established by the Licensing Board; how-ever, one can only speculate whether such action would have been taken without the Licensing Board's impetus or whether such a contention would have been sufficient without the benefit of Mr. Keppler's deposition.
It is instructive to note that Inter-venors did not make use of Staff documents available to them, as illustrated by the QA/QC contention originally proposed, until the Licensing Board adopted its extraordinary procedures.
'~8-Not only did the Licensing Board's adoption of extraordinary pro-cedures give the Intervenors an unwarranted second opportunity to file an untimely contention but, as discussed more fully in response to subsequent Commission questions, the Licensing Board incorrectly balanced the facters listed in 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(a)(1) in determining to allow the late-filed contention.
Intervenors have not identified any information not first uncovered and acted upon by the NRC Staff in its inspection reports nor have they identified any witnesses of their own whom they intend to call as part of a direct case in support of their claims.
Rather, they have identified numerous Staff and Applicant employees they have or are going to depose during discovery or cross-examine during evidentiary hearings in this proceeding. 9/
In sum, the Licensing Board's action has resulted in the substantial unanticipated commitment of Staff resources to the litigation of an issue which would, but for the Board's admission of the amended quality assurance contention, have been dealt with in the normal course of the Staff's inspection process. El
-9/
When directed by the Licensing Board to list the witnesses they intend to call to provide their claims, the Intervenors listed as their only named witnesses eight NRC regional employees including Mr. Keppler, Regional Administrator, and an unquantified number of Construction Assessment Team (CAT) members. See " Witnesses To Be Called By Intervenors Rorem Et A1." (July 12, 1985). Also, in response to Interrogatories by the Staff and Applicant requesting identification of anticipated witnesses, Intervenors have not identified any witnesses of their own.
Intervenors' Response To NRC Staff's First Set Of Interrogatories and Requests To Produce (August 1, 1985).
10/ " Affidavit Of JAMES G. KEPPLER" attached to "NRC Staff Brief In Support of Commonwealth Fdison Company's Motion For Exemption From Commission Regulation" (October 8, 1985).
t
F.
2.
(A) Is the reliance on the Keppler deposition the only claimed basis for error in the Licensing Board's admission of the amended Rorem QA/QC contention? (B) What is the response of applicant and staff to Rorem's statement in her October 7, 1985 filing that the amended QA/QC contention is not based on the Keppler deposition, but on other publicly available materials?
(A)
In addition to permitting Intervenors to depose Mr. Keppler regarding matters not properly placed in controversy, the Staff maintains the Licensing Board erred in determining that, on balance, the factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1) militated in favor of admitting Inter-venors' untimely QA/QC contention into the proceeding.
In particular, the Licensing Board erroneously concluded that the third and fifth factors
-- the ability of Intervenors to contribute to the development of a sound record and the potential of the late-filed contention to broaden the issues or delay the proceeding -- weighed in Intervenors' favor. See LBP-85-20, 21 NRC 1732, 1744-49 (1985).
The Staff argued before the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board that neither of these factors should have been resolved in Intervenors' favor. See NRC Staff Response To Bridget Little Rorem, Et A1., Motion For Leave To File Additional Contention at 8-11 (April 1, 1985); NRC Staff Objection to and Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order Dated April 17,1985(LBP-85-11) at 8-12 (May 6,1985); NRC Staff Response To Applicant's Motion For Directed Certification at 16 n.7 (July 23,1985). Specifically, the Staff noted that in regard to the question whether Intervenor could be expected to contribute to the development of a sound record, Inter-venors (1) had not identified the particular issues they sought to liti-
1 1,
gate; (ii) had not described the evidence, if any, they intended to present, (iii) had not identified the qualified experts they had retained or planned to retain to assist it in the proceeding; or (iv) provided the Board any information from which the Board could conclude that Intervenors possessed special expertise concerning quality assurance matters. April 1, 1985 NRC Staff Response, supra, at 9; June 7, 1985 NRC Staff Response, supra, i
at 7-11; see Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project, f
No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1177-78, 1181.
Regarding the fifth factor, the potential for expanding the issues or delay of the proceeding, the Staff notes that the amended quality assurance contention is thirty-one pages'long, consisting of fourteen parts and more than sixty subparts, and calls into question Applicant's compliance with virtually every criterion of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
Since this is the only quality assurance contention in the proceeding, the broadening of the issues attributable solely to Intervenors' late-filed contention is apparent. E The Staff maintains that because Intervenors has not shown good cause for not filing their contention in a timely fashion (see i
LBP-85-11, 21 NRC at 628-29), and has not demonstrated that they can 4
contribute to the development of a sound record by producing credible evidence without unduly delaying the proceeding or expanding the issues,
[
the balance of the factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) weighed
\\'
11/ The only other contention involved in this proceeding raises emer-gency planning questions. That contention has been litigated in substantial part in a one-day hearing on October 29, 1985.
It is anticipated that an additional day of hearings, currently scheduled for February 19, 1986,will close the record on this contention.
i 1
I
against the admission of Intervenors' late-filed quality assurance contention. Consequently, the Staff submits that the Licensing Board erred in determining that "Intervenors will conduct their case so as to affirmatively contribute to the development of a sound record" and that "any delay to the proceeding would not be the fault of Intervenors[.]"
LBP-85-20, 21 NRC at 1749.
(B)
Intervenors are not correct in asserting that Mr. Keppler's deposition " forms no part of Intervenor's admitted contention [.]"
Answer of Intervenor Rorem, et al., Opposing Petition By Coninonwealth Edison Company for Waiver of Commission Regulations and For Review of Appeal Board Order at 4 (October 7,1985). The Staff notes that in numerous instances the amended quality assurance contention cites the Keppler deposition as one of the bases for a particular allegation.
E.g., Motion to Admit Amended Quality Assurance Contention at 1,17,18, 24 (May 24, 1985).
Indeed, in their motion to admit the amended contention Intervenors stated:
" Documentary materials supporting this amended contention... are attached hereto as exhibits. Among these materials are portions of the transcript of testimony of Nuclear Regulatory Administrator James G. Keppler... given in deposition on May 20, 1985[.]"
I_d. at 1.
In any event, the crucial consideration in the Staff's view is not whether Intervenors relies solely upon the Keppler deposition to support their contention. Rather, the salient and incontro-vertible fact is that the extraordinary procedures crafted by the Licensing Board, including the holding of the Keppler deposition provided Intervenors yet another opportunity to review the information already publicly available (chiefly NRC inspection reports) necessary to formulate the amended contention.
+.
u Indeed, Intervenors concedes as much:
"The role of the Keppler deposition, then, was simply to return the Board and'the parties to the important inspection activity already on the public record." October 7, 1985 Answer at 4.
This is a telling admission on the part of Intervenors.
It is a candid acknowledgement from Intervenors that the information relieduponbythemtobolstertheirc0n'tentionwaspublQclyavailable long in advance of the Keppler deposition.
Yet, despite the availability of this information, Irtervenors were unable or unwilling to raise in a more timely fashion a quality assurance contention that could satisfy the specificity and basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) until after they had deposed Mr. Keppler.
~
3.
(A)
If the answer to the first part of Question 2'is yes, why does error in allowing the deposition necessarily lead to rejection of the contention?
~
(B) Are applicant and staff arguing for the use of some exclusionary rule, like the much criticized one used in criminal cases whereby error in allowing discovery a
bars admission of a contention based on that discovery, and if so, what is the support of this argument?
A.
The. Licensing Board's error in permitting Mr.;Keppler to be deposedregarding,amatibrnotproperlyplacedincontroversythrough the admission of a valid contention is not tht., Staff's only claimed basis of error warranting the.iejection of the Intervenors' amended quality assurance contention. The Staff argues (and argued, albeit unsuccessfully, before the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board) the late-filed amended contention should have been rejected because the Licensing Board concludsd etreneously that, on balance, the factors s
e m
m
listed in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) militated in favor of admitting the contention into the proceeding. See generally Response to Question 2, supra, Response to Question 4, infra.
B.
The Staff does not advocate that the Commission apply the so-called " fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Nor is the appli-cation of that principle necessary to resolve the questions presented for the Commissions' review.
4.
If the answer to the first part of Question 2 is no, what other errors are asserted that could lead to rejection of the amended QA/QC contention?
As explained in the Staff's response to Question 2, Intervenors' amended quality assurance contention should be rejected because the Licensing Board concluded errcneously that, on balance, the five factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a) favored the acceptance of Intervenors' untimely contention. As explained earlier, in the Staff's view the Licensing Board erroneously concluded that the third and fifth factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a) weighed in Intervenors' favor. See Response to Question 2, supra.
It is now six months since the contention was admitted. Notwith-standing Intervenors' statements about looking for witnesses and vague assertions that they are undertaking to retain experts, 12/ there remains no showing that Intervenors are going to be able Lu provide any
-12/ See " Motion to Admitted Amended Quality Assurance Contention" THay 24, 1985) at 12-13.
. witnesses or put on any direct case, b Rather, extensive Staff resources and Applicant resources will be expended litigating past NRC inspections which identified deficiencies, the resolution of those deficiencies by the Applicant, and why the Staff believes the Applicant's resolution is acceptable. This is all work which the Staff performs in the normal course of performing its duties. No contribution by Intervenors is made to the process by having to repeat, in an adversary environment with all the potential delays of engaging in complex litigation, information which already is available to the public in Staff inspection reports and related documents in the Connissions' public document rooms.
Furthermore, over 60 issues have been identified and the litigation of these issuet beginning after the only other matter in controversy will have been fully litigated clearly will broaden the litigation and delay resolution of the appli-cation. To await issuance of the Licensing Board's initial decision to
-13/ See " Response To NRC Staff Interrogatories To Intervenor Bridget Little Rorem et al. Concerning Its Quality Assurance Contention And Motion For Protective Order" (August 1, 1985). Therein, Intervenors stated:
These interrogatories are being answered by the undersigned counsel for Intervenors.
No consul-tants or other advisors are relied upon for such answers.
Intervenors have not, at this time, identified the witnesses they expect to call at hearing with regard to the subject matter of these interrogatories. However, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.740(e). Intervenors intend to seasonably supplement this response to identify persons expected to be called as experts.
Id. at iv. To date, Intervenors have not supplemented their response identifying any person or persons they expect to call as witnesses.
. correct the Licensing Board's erroneous balancing of the five factors will result in such a large and unwarranted use of Staff resources and delay in licensing that Commission action to prevent such a result is clearly appropriate.
5.
If the amended QA/QC contention is rejected because of its use of the Keppler deposition, could intervenor Rorem support admission of the contention based on other availdble information?
The Staff is not aware of any information other than the Staff inspection reports already in the public domain and cited by Intervenor in their amended quality assurance contention that could be used to support the admission of a contention that meets the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b). Of course, the Staff is not in a position to state whether Intervenors possesses additional information which could support the readmission of their quality assurance contention.
The Staff notes, however, that in responding to Staff interrogatories Intervenors did not identify any additional information which supported their contention. See Intervenors' Response To NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce (August 1, 1985). Nor have Inter-venors disclosed any information in their possession "which is relevant and material to the matter being adjudicated.' Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625-26 (1973). However, assuming Intervenor' possess no information other than that already reflected in their amended quality assurance contention, the Staff believes that were the Commission to vacate the order admitting the amended contention, Intervenors would be unable to make the showing necessary to have the an' ended late-filed contention readmitted into the
. proceeding.
In this regard, the Staff agrees with Judge Moore that the Licensing Board would not necessarily conclude again that, on balance, the factors governing late-filed contentions militate in favor of admitting the contention. See ALAB-817, slip op. at 15, n.11, 22 NRC at 478, n.11 (dissenting opinion of Judge Moore).
6.
If the answer to Question 5 is yes, how would Commission review at this time affect the scope or timing of the QA/QC hearing?
Assuming Intervenors possess additional information to support the amended contention (and there is no indication that they do), a ruling by the Commission vacating the' order of the Licensing Board which admitted the contention would not necessarily result in the termination of litigation of quality assurance issues, This is because Intervenors would be free to resubmit, and the Licensing Board to accept, the resubmitted proposed contention if Intervenors demonstrated that the factors governing late-filed contentions weighed in favor of admitting the contention. Of course, it is the Staff's view that Intervenors would not be able to make the requisite showing.
On the other hand, if Intervenors did not ('.) submit any proposed amendments to the currently admited contention or (2) submit any proposed new contention, no delay would be occasioned by the Connission's review of ALAB-817 because discovery and other pretrial activities related to the currently admitted contention have been ongoing and will continue pending the Commission's ruling. A ruling from the Commission is anti-cipated prior to the connencement of the QA/QC hearing expected to begin in Spring of 1986.
17 -
7.
Could greater diligence by applicant or intervenor Rorem have led to earlier litigation of QA/QC issues in this proceeding?
Had Intervenors complied with their " ironclad obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material... with sufficient care
... to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation" of itscontention, Catawba, supra,16NRC460,468(1982), Intervenors could have submitted their QA/QC contention in a timelier fashion.
In this connection, the Licensing Board found that "by August 1984 Intervenors had ample material to propound the essential elements of the OA/QC conten-tion." LBP-85-11, 21 NRC at 629.
Respect ly submitted, ihl$U Stuart A. Treby AssistantChiefHear)ngCounsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of December, 1985 i
4
.--,--m--
,.c y
y
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C W "IJ D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION 85 DEC 19 P4:41 In the Matter of
{ig3g lg COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )
CEPTTFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION'S DECEMBER 5, 1985 ORDER" 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 mail system, this 19th day of December, 1985:
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Comonwealth 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 Comission 102 Oak Lane Office of Inspection & Enforcement Oak Ridge, TN 37830 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Joseph Gallo, Esq.
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 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Robert Guild, Esq.
Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 1300 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Il 60602 Suite 5200 Chicago, IL 60602
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 ard Licensing Appeal Erie Jones, 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 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
117 North Linden Street Associate General Counsel Essex, IL 60935 FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 George Edgar, Esq.
Washington, DC 20740 Newman, Holtzinger 1615 L. Street, N.W.
Herzel H. E. Plaine*
Suite 1000 General Counsel Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Samuel J. Chilk*
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
/
kN!
d c
Stuart A. Treby Assistant Chief Hearin Counsel O