ML12353A404
| ML12353A404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2012 |
| From: | Ayres R Ayres Law Group, Friends of the Earth |
| To: | Gary Arnold, Anthony Baratta, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23907, 50-361-CAL, 50-362-CAL, ASLBP 13-924-01-CAL-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12353A404 (3) | |
Text
Ayres Law Group
- 1707 L Street, N.W.
- Suite 850
- Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 452-9200
- Fax (202) 416-0155
- www.AyresLawGroup.com December 18, 2012 E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. Gary S. Arnold Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike, Sixteenth Floor Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Question Referred by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) ASLBP No. 13924 01CALBD01 Gentlemen:
We write seeking clarification of the meaning of the Boards December 7th Order with respect to the briefing schedule in this matter.
As you know, on December 11, 2012, Friends of the Earth (FoE) filed a motion seeking an Order from the Board for, inter alia, a schedule for briefing the issues in this matter consistent with the need for the licensee to provide, and Petitioner to review, documents needed to address the question referred by the Commission.
In its December 7, 2012, Order, the Board proposed a suggested briefing schedule by which FoEs initial brief would have been due December 21, 2012. But the Board recognized that the issues were complex, and that there were numerous proprietary documents that FoE had not yet seen. In light of these considerations, the Board stated that if a party determines the abovesuggested schedule does not provide adequate time to prepare thorough, highquality briefs, that party should inform the other parties and then all participants should work in a cooperative effort toward presentation of a joint motion proposing a revised schedule. (Boards Order at p. 5) No further direction as to scheduling of briefing was provided in the Boards Order.
Ayres Law Group
December 18, 2012 Page 2 As the Board knows, an attempt to present a joint scheduling motion failed, and Petitioner therefore presented its own motion to establish a briefing schedule, which is currently pending before the Board.
We understand from a phone call yesterday with the office of the Boards clerk that an Order in response to FoEs motion may be anticipated by Friday, December 21. With no briefing schedule in place, Petitioner is currently placed in a quandary. If, based on our understanding that the Boards December 7 order does not establish a briefing schedule, we continue to work on Petitioners brief but do not file it on Friday, Petitioner takes a risk of being considered untimely. If, on the other hand, we do attempt to file Petitioners opening brief without the opportunity to review the documents identified in our motion to the Board, we will be unable to provide the Board with the benefit of the kind of brief it has requested to assist in reaching an appropriate conclusion.
We recognize that the Board may not yet be ready to issue its ruling on Petitioners motion, and we do not wish to affect in any way the Boards deliberative process on our motion. However, Petitioner and its counsel would be able to use their time more efficiently and productively if the Board were to confirm Petitioners understanding that the Boards December 7 Order does not establish a briefing schedule.
During the pendency of FoEs motion, Petitioner has continued to work diligently on preparing its brief and with the materials that have been provided to us to date. We look forward to the opportunity to review the additional relevant documents identified in our motion, and to providing a brief that will assist the Board in reaching a correct decision on the questions put by the Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard Ayres Richard E. Ayres Counsel for Petitioner Friends of the Earth Delivered by Email to:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, roy.hawkens@nrc.gov
December 18, 2012 Page 3 Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, anthony.baratta@nrc.gov Dr. Gary S. Arnold, gary.arnold@nrc.govHearing Docket, hearingdocket@nrc.gov David Roth, David.Roth@nrc.gov Catherine Kanatas, Catherine.Kanatis@nrc.gov Steven P. Frantz, sfrantz@morganlewis.com Steven J. Burdick, sburdick@morganlewis.com Geoffrey Fettus, GFettus@NRDC.org