ML19261A666
| ML19261A666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902060024 | |
| Download: ML19261A666 (5) | |
Text
N R C P u g y' W u.. i g,,
N-w A
,b r*
o(>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of((,j$.
2 O
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OF
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b
c 4
Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment of Materials
)
License SNM-1773 for Oconee
)
Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR THE ESTABLISH 21ENT OF A HEARING SCHEDULE On November 2, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1/
established to rule on petitions ~
(Petition Board) granted intervenor status to three of the petitioning parties.
It de-ferred ruling on the two remaining petitioners subject to re-ceiving pleadings from the parties involved.
On January 9, 1979, the Petitions Board ruled on the two remaining petitions, there-by completing its task.
Accordingly, the matter is now properly before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to con-duct the hearing-2/
(Hearing Board) that presumably will be held in this matter.
The Notice of Hearing which established the Hearing Board ctated that:
"A prehearing conference or conferences will be held by the Hearing Board, at a time and place to be set by it, to consider pertinent matters in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice."
Pertinent matters include the determination of the issues in 1/ See 43 Fed. Reg. 39 197 (1978).
7902% om y 2/ See 43 Fed. Reg. 52 303 (1978).
controversy, the establishment of a discovery schedule, the submittal of prefiled testimony and the commencement of eviden-tiary hearings.
Applicant is of the view that it is unnecessary to hold a prehearing conference to discuss these matters.
A prehearing conference was held on October 24, 1978 in reference to the Petitions Board's consideration of the intervention peti-tions.
Applicant submits that such prehearing conference satis-fies the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice with respect to the Hearing Board's conduct of a prehearing conference.
Support for this position is found in an examination of the October 24, 1978 prehearing conference transcript which reflects that the presently identified Intervenors not only addressed their interest in this proceeding, but also discussed the sub-stance of their contentions.
Indeed, as to the admitted parties, Applicant and Staff have stipulated to contentions, so as to render further discussions in this regard unnecessary.-3/
In-asmuch as the composition of the Hearing Board is identical to the Petitions Board, and inasmuch as it is the function of the Hearing Board to rule on the contentions which were discussed before the Petitions Board, to require a further prehearing con-ference in such a circumstance elevates form over substance.
Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Hearing Board to rule on the contentions that have been discussed and to thereafter es-tablish a schedule which treats the pertinent matters referred
~3/ Applicant took issue with limited aspects of the stipula-tion.
These matters were discussed at the prehearing conference.
In addition, two of the Intervenors raised additional contentions at the prehearing conference.
These contentions were addressed at the prehearing conference and in subsequent pleadings.
to above.~4/ In this regard, Applicant moves that the following schedule be adopted:
1.
Timely issuance of the Hearing Board's ruling on contentions and establishment of schedule.
2.
Completion of discovery 30 days after issuance of Board Order establishing a schedule.~5/
3.
Submittal of prefiled testimony pursuant to 10 CFR S2.743(b) 15 days after conclusion of discovery.
4.
Commencement of evidentiary hearings 15 days after submittal of prefiled testimony.
Applicant is hopeful that the above suggested schedule is amenable to the Board and Parties, and that pursuant to such schedule the matter under consideration can be timely resolved.
Respectfully submitted,.
l'
,bd e7 Michael McGarry, III Of counsel:
William L.
Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company January 25, 1979
~4/ Alternatively, as set forth in Appendix B to Applicant's October 27, 1978 " Comment on Objection Contained in Stipu-lation...", the Petitions Board may rule on contentions on the basis of the pleadings and the oral representations made at the October 24, 1978 prehearing conference.
The Hearing Board can thereafter adopt such ruling as its own without having to conduct another prehearing conference.
5/ By its pleading of September 5, 1978, Applicant has indi-cated its willingness to engage in discovery.
Intervenor CESG has availed itself of this offer and has been engaged in this proceeding in extensive discovery of Applicant since September 29, 1978; Applicant has provided voluminous responses. CESG has been taking discovery of the Staff in this proceeding since November 16, 1978.
Accordingly, the time for discovery can be necessarily limited.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFFQ' AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
uGKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment of Materials
)
License SNM-1773 for Oconee
)
Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion for the Establishment of a Hearing Schedule", dated January 25, 1979 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 2Jth day of January, 1979.
Robert M.
Lazo, Esq.
Mr. Jesse L.
Riley Chairman, Atomic Safety and President Licensing Board Carolina Environmental U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Study Group Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D.
C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Edward G.
Ketchen, Lsq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Regulatory Board Staff U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal Commission Director Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing con,
D.
C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr.
Director William L.
Porter, Esq.
Bodega Marine Laboratory Associate General Counsel of California Duke Power Company Post Office Box 247 Post Office Box 2178 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Charlotte, Morth Carolina 28242
~ Shelley Blum, Esq.
Chuck Gaddy 418 Law Building Chairperson 730 East Trade Street Davidson PIRG Charlotte, North Carolina P.
O.
Box 2501 28202 Davidson College
- Davidson, N.C.
28036 Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Chairman, Atomic Safety and Council Licensing Board Panel 917 15th Street, N.W.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
2n005 Commission Washington, Dia2.
20555 Brenda Best Carolina Action Chairman, Atomic Safety and 1740 E.
Independence Blvd.
Licensing Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina U.
S.
Nuclear Regulacory 28205 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Jeremy Bloch Safe Energy Alliance Mr. Chase R.
Stephens 1707 Lombardy Circle Docketing & Service Section Charlotte, North Carolina Office of the Secretary 28203 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard P. Wilson Washington, D.
C.
20555 Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolina 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 fbr i1 l[
1
/
J. Michael McGarry, I I,I'