ML19341A547
| ML19341A547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1981 |
| From: | Baldwin W, Halterman H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, BALDWIN, W. A., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8101270057 | |
| Download: ML19341A547 (5) | |
Text
~
gsv&SM g
y, 9
U J
- oors, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Q
38 2Ng y I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
S In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC *:0MPANY
)
Docket No. 50-70 (Vallecitos Nuclear Center-
)
~
General Electric Test Reactor
)
Operating License No. TR-1)
)
INTERVENORS JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE LEADING TO HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF INTERVENORS' RIGHT TO DISCOVER
- 1. Intervenors are filing this joint response in light of the fact that it did not receive a copy of the Transcript until the evening of January 13, 1981.
At this point, it was impracticable to duplicate the one copy in order that Counsel for Intervenor Friends of the Earth would have an opportunity to con-duct an independent revier of the Transcript. This filing should not be viewed as a concession that all Intervenors are unified in this proceeding and each Intervenor submits the filing with the understanding that it does not prejudice the' independence of their representations.
(
2.
Intervenors wish to point out at the outset that their efforts to prepare their cases are fraught with much greater difficulties than are those far d by the Lice.,
or NRC Staff. This is largely so because of our greater difficulty in coordinat.ng experts and potential witnesses who are not able to be held on retainer.
ObYiously, this affects our view as to th$ time reasonably necessary -
for the various stages leading up to the Hearing. However, we have attempted in presenti,ng our ytews to hold to the spirit of.the discussion held at the 3
Second Pre-Hearing Conference, g
In additi,on, the proposed schedule which follows is, in our view, contingent
/ /
upon the prompt reinstatement of Intervenors' rights to discover.
In that
.e
connection, we hereby request the Board to review its decision to suspend Inter-venors' rights to discoverand that it reinstate those rights forthwith.
3.
Intervenors' joint proposed schedule is:
January 21, 1981: Pre-Hearing Conference call re scheduling and the commencement of the period for updating answers to discovery questions;
~
February 27, 1981:
Deadline for update to answers to old discovery and the commencement of new, unlimited discovery; March 50,1980: Termination of new, unlimited discovery; April 10,1981:
Deadli.ne for all answers to discovery; May 8, 1981:
Deadline for the filing of written testimony; June 2,1981: Conaentement of Hearing, Wi,th respect to the February 27, 1981 deadline for updates to interrogatories, Interyehors note 'that thi.s i.s slightly more than five weeks and within the framework of.th'e Board's original contemplation, (Transcript,123) Intervenors will need more than the four weeks witich was discussed as a minimum period in order that it might' provide a reasonable assessment of its case and suitable answers to these questions.
With respect to the March 20, 1981 deadline for termination of unlimited discovery, InterYenors note that this was within the Board's contemplation (Transcript 123-4) and i.s consistent with the Regulations.
Again, Intervenors will have more difficulty in outckly turni.ng out questions and havebeen so far barred from further discovery.
As to the April 10, 1981 deadline for answers to discovery, Intervenors point out that the Regulations provide that the. Chair may allow some leeway in the -time to i
answer discovery requests.
(10 C.F.R. 2.740) The view of Intervenors is that three weeks is a reasonable period.
As to the May 8,1981 deadline for the' submission of testimony, it is the position i
of Interyenors thAt four weeks should be given following the termination of all discovery fop the preparati.cn of wri.tten testimony" As testimony will not'be able to be fully contemplated until discovery is complete, there may well be important
-.m r
statements whi:h will need this time in order to be able to be prepared.
As to the June.2, 1981 date for the Hearing, we note that this follows May 8, 1981 by twenty-five days.
We reserve the right to suggest modifications to these days, pending the issuance and service of the final SER. Should it be delayed, our position would be that the schedule should be moved forward " day for day".
4.
There was discussion at the Pre-Hearing Conference of allowing only five (5) clys for filing objections to discovery requests. While this limit is within the Boards discretion, we believe that ten (10) dcys,is more reasonable.
Even with the willingness of the parties to work to expedite service, five days may be unreason-ably short, especially as applied to Intervenors.
We are opposed to the requirement that Motuns to Compel be filed with five (5) days of either a failure to answer or the filing of an objection.
The Regulatio"s require,'and we-believe with good reaans, that this be set at ten (10) days.
5.
We-have not specificCly indicated a date for the final Pre-Hearing Conference.
The range we suggest would be at any time at least ten (10) days following-the deadline for the filing of answers to all discovery,'i.e., April 20, 1981, or within a week of the submission of written testimony, i.e.,-May, 15, 1981. Obviously these-dates would be modi.fied if there were any pending objections or Motions to Compel.
l j
Our tendency is in favor of a point following~the submission of testimony. We believe i
that a later date would allow for the presentation of a more complete' set of pronlems to be resolved.
6.
Our p3sition as to the suggestion that cross-examination or a plan for cross-examination be submitted in advance of the Hearing is that it is too onerous and should not be contemplated, i
7, It is the posi: tion of Intenyenors that the cut-eff of the presentati'on of an i
affi.rma<ttye case,'i';e,, the i.dentification of wiftnesses, subject matter and documents, should 6c no earlier than the deadline for the completion of all discovery.
Such a l
% demarcation would allow all Parties to be made aware of the broad strokes of case in chief of each of the other Parties and would provide them with an opportunity to anticipate such in their presentation of their written testimony and in preparation for cross-examination. An earlier delimitation would work hardship on some of the Parties.
8.
We believe that the above suggestions ard responsive to the Board's request.
We would like to note, however, that because of the complexity of this case and its evolution that this schedule may need to be modified. We want to reserve the right to request modifications if they become necessary.
We would also like the Record to show that notwithstanding the complexities of the case, the fact that it has an impact on the lives of millions of people and that comparable cases might continue for much longer periods of time that the Intervenors have attempted.to propose a plan which is equitable to all Parties.
It is our view that 'in large msasure the proposals above are a minimum length of time for the activities necessary before the comencement of this Hearing and they. represent con-cessions against our interest.
Respectfully submitted,
[
. Lee Halt rman Counsel forIntervenors Dellums, Burton & Burton h.
.a If, Andrew Baldwin Counsel for Intervenors Friends of the Earth and Ms,-Barbara Shockley Dated at Oakland, California this 15th day of January,1981 g
y - g
4 g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p
NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION nor - r -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICESNING BOA In the Matter of 1
3N#
h q.
ofr.ce of t% femtry 3 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ll DOCKET No. 50-7
%,f '"k' (ShowCause)
'?
))
(vallecitos Nuclear Center -
,,,. g g, General Electric Test Reactor Operating License No. TR-1)
)i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of INTERVENOR SJOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE LEADING TO HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF INTERVENORS' RIGHT TO DISCOVER in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in t'he United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 15th day of January,1981 Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chair George Edgar, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D.C.$. 20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Judge Jed Somit, Esq.
Atomic Safety 'and Licensing Board
..100 Bush Street, Suite 304 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission San Francisco., CA 94104 Washington, D.C.'-
Mr. Ken Wade Dr. Harry Foreman, Judge 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Room 503 Box 395, Mayo Washington, D.C.
20006 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 Edward A. Firestone, Esq.
General Electric Company Richard G. Bachman.Esq.
Nuclear Energy Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission 175 Curtner Avenue Washington, D.C.
20555 San Jose, CA 95125 (Mail Code 822)
Ms. Barbara Shockley 1890 Bockman Road The Honorable' John L. Burton San Lorenzo, CA 94580 1714 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C.
20515 The Honorable Phillip Burton 2454 Rayburn House Office Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington,c-D.C. -- 20515. -
U.S.. Nuclear, Regulatory / Commission,pu--
Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Friends of the Earth Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel 124 Spear Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, CA 94105 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Respectful'ly submitted, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l/
Washington, D.C.
20555 f
. Lee a terma dated at Oakland, California Counsel for Intervenors Delluns,, Burtor t
h