ML18026A315
| ML18026A315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8011170874 | |
| Download: ML18026A315 (19) | |
Text
REGULA T ITVFORRA TION DISTRIBUTIOV TE, I (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8011170874 DOC ~ DATE: 80/11/1?
NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET FACIL!50 %8-MuSquehanna.
Steam EleCtriC Stat i On~
Uni t iE PennSyl Va 05000387 0
squehanna Steam Klectric Stationi Unit 2g Pennsylva 05000388
~ I AUTHOR AFFILIATION B
HHOKFEREC.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel REC IP ~ NAME REC IP IKV T AFF ILIA7 ION Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Co,
SUBJECT:
9emor anduv i order granting applicants'01007 motion to, estaolish nePT discovery schedule re health 8 safety issues to extent indicated in present orders Applicants must submit new emergency olans conforming w/new regulations, DISTRIBUTION CODE:
DOSES COPIES RECEIVED:LTR Q. I'4CL L SIZE:g TITLE: Non 4nti trust Issuances NOTES:Send IKE 3 copies FSAR E all amends.
Send IEE 3 copies FSAR E all amends'5000387 05000388 RECIPIENT ID COOK/V4HE 4C T ION'USHH ROOK R I ~
INTERNAL: ASLAP ICE OEl DRBl ANTON PUBLIC AFFAIRS EXTERNAL: L'PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NARK STARKgR ~
F Il.E COP IES LTTR EN CL, 1
~ov j 9 198'OT4L VU~BER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 1
ENCL 18
hlgy ]. P )o~
UNITED STATES OF X4IERICA HUCLIUR REGUIATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dz. Oscar E
Paris Glenn 0. Bright.
In the Natter of'CETERA gsNRC Nav 13$ 80 ~
pmce <g the SeCtat~=
11 ggggag 5 Scaice gltch
]p PENHSYE,VANIA. POQER & LIGHT COMPMY'nd ALTE%KNY ELECTRIC COOPERATV7E,, INC (Susquehanna Steam EIectric Station Units l. and 2)
)
)
Docke Nos. 50-38?
OL.
)'O'-388 OL MEHDRAHDUK AND ORDER ESTM3LISHIHG'EW DISCOVERY SCHEDULE'OR RQKTY ISSUES Novembez 12~ -l980 Qn October 7
l980 the Applicant:s filed a motion ta establish, a new -schedule for the completion: oE discovery. on
'ealth ance safety issues.
The, NRC Staff supports the motion.
ECHP opposes it.
Other intezvenozs have not responded.
Fox.
the reasons which: foIXow, we agree-that a new scheduX.e shou%
be. estabUshecK but. on. terms somewhat dif'ferent from; those sought by the Applicants EazIy Qz; t:his'roceeding.,
we grouped the varfous. contentions admitted Quito controversy into environmental and health ance safety contentions.
Ve anticipateK sepa ate hearings for these two categories, of issues, with. the environmental issues to be
2-heard first.
But we permitted discovery to commence on all contentions.'ee Special Prehearing Conference
- Order, LBP-79-6, 9
NRC 291, 327-28 (1979).
Thereafter, in our Memorandum and Order on Discovery Motions (TI), LBP-79-31, 10 NRC 597 (1979),
we suspended all discovery obligations on the health and safety.issues.
(Among the intervenors, only Co11een Marsh had previously responded to discovery'equests on those issues.)
We took that action in part to alleviate the burdens then confronting the intervenors in responding to a, substantial number of quite complex discovery requests.
We anticipated that no significant delay in comple-t tion of the proceeding would result, based'n. the, Staff's.:;advice...
that the Final Environmental Statement (FES) was then scheduled for issuance in late January,
- 1980, the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was scheduled.'or issuance in late August,
- 1980, and the SER Supplement was scheduled for issuance in early January, 1981.
That schedule would have resulted in environmental hear-
'ings-no earlier than March or April, 1980, and health. and safety hearings no earlier than February or March, 1981.
Id. at 602-03.
~
% Ak
)
With almost a year between the commencement of the anticioated environmental and health and safety hearings, there aooeared to be sufficient time following the environmental hearings for the..varties to complete..their responses to.discovery-on the-,---,,-- -----
health and safety issues, without resulting in delay of the
~
a ~,q-r, ~
~
~ wswsat
-s-.
d 4 V
I '
I ~ ~
9<<
I E ~
t A
'"iL t..
IF ifhi '-
6
latter hearings.
We therefore postponed discovery on the health and safety contentions until the completion of the environmental hearings.
Id. at 605-06.
The Applicants seek reinstatement of di.scovery obligations on health and. safety issues as a result of delays in the issuance of the FES and a narrowing of the time frame between the projected issuance of the FES and SER.
By letter dated July 10, 1980, the Staff advised us that the FES was scheduled for issuance in December, 1980, the SER in February,
- 1981, and the SER Supplement in May, 1981.
Thereafter, in its response to the Applicants'otion, the Staff reported that the FES would be issued in January, 1981 (with the SER still scheduled for
- February, 1981).
The Appplicants assert'ha2; is" a'result ohe reduction in time between the projected issuance of the FES and SER, there no longer will remain sufficient time after the environmental hearings to permit completion of discovery on the
'ealth and safety issues without delaying the health and safety hearings.
They add that discovery after the environmental hearings would "conflict with the preparation of proposed findings and conclusions on environmental issues as well as preparation for the safety hearings."
The Staff agrees that the changed circumstances warrant reconsideration of the discovery schedule.
~I e
~
ECNP is the only intervenor which has opposed the resumption of discovery on health and safety questions at this time.
Tt claims that we have already ruled on this matter in our October 30, 1979 Order (LBP-79-31,
~su ra). It also asserts that additional time should be allotted after the environmental phase of the proceeding to permit intervenors to review their safety contentions and submit new and revised contentions based upon the status of the Applicants'ompliance with various requirements emanating from the reviews of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 accident and. from other newly issued safety studies.
ECNP adds that it is currently participating in the proceeding involving the restart of. the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 reactor and,that 'the'evidentiary'hearings.-in-'ethat-pro--
ceeding have just begun and are expected to continue for some six months.
We agree with the Applicants and Staff that a discovery schedule for health. and safety issues should be reinstituted it this time.
We read the NRC Rules of Practice as imposing upon us the obligation to conduct hearings expeditiously and to s'chedule them insofar as possible to avoid unnecessary delay.
See 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A (introductory statement).
The alteration in dates for proposed issuance of the FES and SER.
constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a
Cg h y ll 4-
5 modification of the schedule presently in effect.
- Indeed, depending upon the dates when Staff review documents are eventually issued, we may find it necessary to hold the environ-mental and health and safety hearings sequentially, with little intervening time.
Without a resumption of discovery on the health and safety issues at this time, the timely completion of the health and safety hearings may not be achievable.
- Moreover,
- the obligations imposed on parties by this proceeding at the present time appear to be light and, with the possible exception of ECNP, would appear to permit the resumption of discovery without causing any undue hardship.
Furthermore, we are pre-pared to permit more time for the completion of first-round discovery than'the 30 dayug'gested by the Applicants'.
As for ECNP, we are aware of its participation in the TNI-1 restart-proceedings.
As we pointed out in our October, 1979 Order (LBP-79-31,
~su ra, 10 HRC at 604), the Appeal Board has stated that a party seeking to participate in more than one proceeding simultaneously must expend extra effort to meet the prescribed schedules in each case.
See also the Appeal 4
Board's recent decision in this proceeding, AIJB-613, 12 NRC (September 23, 1980) (slip op., pp.
39, 41).
ECNP in this proceeding has been represented by two different individuals.
Even were the organization to use the same representational arran'gement in the TMI-1 restart proceeding, it would not appear
I, h
~ ~
\\
a eo h.
necessary for both of those individuals to spend all of their time dealing with that proceeding.
Thus, it does not appear to be overly burdensome for ECNP to meet the new schedules we are here imposing and which we believe, based on the informa-tion before us, are needed to permit us to bring this proceeding to a timely conclusion.,
As indicated above, we are affording more time for the completion of discovery on health and safety issues than the 30 days, suggested by the Applicants.
With one exception; responses to outstanding discovery requests should be filed by Friday, January 16, 1981..1/
y ~'>>
e 4
"~-
The one exception concerns discovery requests relating to the Applicants'roposed emergency plan (Contention 6).
Many interrogatories propounded by the Applicants (numbers 6-2
~ through 6-7; 6-9,. 6-10',
and 6-13) and the Staff (numbers S-6.4.
.and S-6.5 directed to ECNP and SEA) seek the intervenors'valuation of various aspects of the emergency plan.
The Com-mission has recently adopted new regulations dealing with emergency planning.
45 Fed.
~Re
. 55402 (August 19,
- 1980, effective November 3~ 1980).
Applicants must submit new 2/
emergency plans which conform to the new requirements.
The Applicant's here have not yet done so.
Xt would serve no useful 2/
Our ruling that an intervenor need respond to discovery requests only concerning contentions or portions of contentions which it is sponsoring remains in effect.
The Staff furnished the Board and all parties with copies of these new regulations on August 22, 1980.
I
7 purpose to have intervenors answer questions concerning the emergency plan now included in the Final Safety Analysis Report, since it does not attempt to conform to the new requirements and hence is not likely to be utilized by the Applicants in seeking operating licenses.
For that reason, the Zntervenors need not submit answers to questions on Contention 6 until either January 16, 1981 or 15 days following service by the Applicants of their new emergency plan (whichever is later).
Concerning ECNP's request for a further safety review to determine whether the Susquehanna facility conforms to newly issued safety requirements, we expect that the Staff's SER or SER Supplement will treat these matters.
Our previous Prehearing u
~'
'ms '<
' ',geesg'-l" use
'm d ",,
x>><',
>.S
"'> ~
Conference Order of March 6, 1979 provided that supplementary discovery requests on new information appearing in the SER or SER Supplement must be filed within 30 days after service of each of those documents, and that responses must be filed within 30 days after service of a request based on the SER
.and within 15 days after service of a request based on the SER Supplement.
LBP-79-6,
~su ra, 9
HRC at 327.
Within 30 days after service of the SER, or within 15 days after service of the SER Supplement, or within 15 days after service of responses to discovery on new information in the SER or SER Supplement, whichever is later, any party may file additional contentions based on new information in the particular Staff document in
question.
Responses to any new contentions must be filed in the time frame provided by 10 CFR 5 2.730(c) for responses to motions.
- Thus, should ECNP (or any other party) believe that newly developing safety issues (including conformance to TMI-inspired safety requirements) have-not been. adequately considered, it may seek litigation of a contention which raises that question.3/
Tn sum, the Applicants'ctober 7,
1980 motion for us to establish a new discovery schedule for health and safety issues is granted to the extent indicated in this Memorandum and Order IT IS SO ORDERED.
~
~
=
~
e-y>> r e ~
s,v'
~ sw
~ ~o,,
m FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c~.
ar es Bec oe er, C a rman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of November 1980.
We approved a similar arrangement for new issues arising from the FES.
LBP-80-18, 11 NRC 906, 910-1.1 (June 24, 1980).
We are aware that ECNP is seeking Commission review of ALAB-613, su ra, an Appeal Board Decision which dealt with several o
our discovery rulings.
Because our ruling here may be perceived as pertinent to the matters discussed in ALAB-613>we are hereby requesting the Secretary of the Commission to serve this Memorandum and Order on the Commis-sioners and the General Counsel.
Nothing in this footnote is intended to affect the delegation to the Appeal Board of the review authority in this proceeding (including the authority to review this Memorandum and Order).
10 CFR g 2.785(a).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefex, Chairman Dr. Oscar. H. Paris Glenn O. Bright In the Matter of
+op 0 sgjp
'ENNSYLVANIAPOWER and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC 6c LIGHT COMPANY
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
Docket Nos.
50-387 OL 50-388 OL (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
ORDER CONCERNING REQUEST FOR FREE TRANSCRIPTS (November 7, 1980)
On August 22,
- 1980, ECNP filed a request for the provision of free transcripts, including the transcripts of "all pre-hearing conferences held to date" and of future evidentiary.
hearings.
The NRC Staff opposed the request insofar as it included transcripts of sessions prior to July 25,
- 1980, the effective date of a rule permitting the provision of free transcripts in certain circumstances; it offered no objection to the provision of free transcripts in the future to the extent permitted by the rule but pointed out that Boards have discretion concerning the distribution of such transcripts.
See 45 Fed.
~Re
. 49535-37 (July 25, 1980).
No other party responded to ECNP's request.
Our authority to make available free transcripts to intervenors stems wholly from the recent amendment of 10 CFR 5 2.750(c).
The new rule has been put into effect on a trial basis for one year.
Tt does not apply retroactively and, accordingly, does not authorize us to provide ECNP with free copies of the transcripts of prehearing conferences held to date.
Accordingly, we ~den that portion of ECNP's request.
We intend to provide
- ECNP, as well as other intervenors who request it, with free xerox copies of all transcripts (as long as the regulations continue to authorize that course of action).
These copies are reproduced by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, but not until an original trans-cript is delivered to that office.
Therefore, they are not likely to be delivered to the intervenors"until some time after the hearing date (and clearly will not be available on an over-night basis).
But we also shall make certain original copies of transcripts available to intervenors free of charge at the same time the Staff receives its copies (i.e., normally on an overnight basis for evidentiary hearing sessions).
We shall determine at a future prehearing conference the exact number of copies which will be provided on that basis.
To that extent we defer action on ECNP's request.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C ar es Bech oe er=,
Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Mary1and this 7th day of November 1980.
UNITED STATES O'F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0~2IISS IO".
In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket !.o. (s) 50-387 50-388 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served t}ie foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the official se-."'ce list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Cornission i".. this proceeding in
'accordance with the requirements of Section 2.7'2 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Co~ission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of legd Office o the Secreta y of, tn Commission
UNITED STATES 'OF &AFRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMXSSION In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POLAR AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
),.
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50 387 50-388 SERVXCE LXST Charles Bechhoefer,'sq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
205'55 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts.& Trowbridge 1800 "MY Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Pennsylvania Power and Light Company ATTN:
Mr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President Engineering and Construction 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co. Director, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ms. Colleen Marsh 558A
'R.D.
84 Mount Top, Pennsylvania 18707
'I Hr.
Thomas J. Halligan Correspondent CAND P.
0.
Box 5
- Scranton, Pennsylvania 1850'erald
- Schultz, Esq.
Susquehanna Environmental Advocates P.O.
Box 1560 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18703 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P.O.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Albert E. Vogel, Jr.,
Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O.
Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120