ML19341C935
| ML19341C935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8103040568 | |
| Download: ML19341C935 (6) | |
Text
..
b-g
,.I o;\\
S ooegTED
\\
usuec 21981 > gAI
,, ',I MAR g
\\ Q b
UNITED STATES OF MERICA Cmet of the Secretary Service NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DocWgg V
@~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
fD 4' 3-
-"l Before Administrative Judges:
\\\\-
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman D
4 Or. Frederick P. Cowan 4/4";
Gustave A. Linenberger 4
e co 8/
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM In the Matter of
)
50-330 OM
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL 50-330 OL (Midland Plant,' Units 1 and 2) ))
)
February 27, 1981 PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM On January 28-29, 1981, the Licensing Board held a prehearing con-ference in accordance with 10 CFR s2.752. The conference was scheduled by our Order Setting Prehearing Conference, dated December 15, 1980, published at 45 Fed. Reg. 84185 (December 22,1980). Participating at the conference were representatives of the Applicant and Staff, as well as Ms. Barbara Stamiris, Ms. Sharon Warren, Mr. Wendell Marshall (for the Mapleton Inter-venors) and Ms. Mary Sinclair.
Much of the time spent at the conference was devoted to the Applicant's motions to compel the depositions of three named Staff witnesses and the Staff's motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of another of its witnesses. Our rulings with respect to those matters are sunmarized in our Memorandum and Order (Corcerning Depositior.s of NRC Staff Members),
LBP-81-4, 13 NRC (February 12,1981).
g302 3
/ o 81080406(oT G
c
. Following is a sumary of other matters discussed and actions taken at the conference.
On January 9,1981, the Applicant filed a request for us to make 1.
certain corrections in our Memorandum Concerning Telephone Conference At the conference, upon being advised that the dated December 31, 1980.
Staff and intervenors had no objection, we granted the Appliant's request Memorandum is thus modified as requested (Tr. 414). Our December 31, 1980 by the Applicant.
Ms. Stamiris and Mr. Marshall had asked us to grant an exception to 2.
i the recent Comission ruling barring t'he award o'f free copies of transcr pts Ms. Sinclair also expressed an interest in this question.
to intervenors.
We stated that the Comission's action stemed from a statutory provision in NRC's current appropriation act, as recently interpreted by the Comptroller General, and that we were without authority to grant an exception to the We indicated, however, that the ruling has ra effect Comission's ruling.
on NRC's maintenance of a local public document room and its supplying transcripts and relevant documents to that room, and that Ms. Stamiris' In response to our inquiry, the Staff fears to the contrary are unfounded.
also indicated that in some instances it could supply copies of documents informally, without charge, to other parties (including intervenors).
Tr. 415-21, 533-35.
We discussed with the parties further discovery which might be 3.
sought (beyond that covered in our Memorandtra and Order concerning depositions of NRC Staff members). Among other matters, the Applicant sought responses from the Staff to interrogatories filed November 12,
)
i
~
j
. 1980. The Applicant claimed that on November 26, 1980 the Staff had agreed to answer the interrogatories "as soon as reasonably possible" but instead had given priority to developing its own discovery requests and had thus far not provided any answers. We were advised that the Staff was projecting its answers for February 25. Although we expressed some concern over the Staff's f ailing to provide answers earlier, we accepted the February 25 date with the caveat that the Staff would have to file a motion to seek any fur-ther extension. Tr. 717. The Applicant advised that it.would respond to certain of the Staff's interrogatories within a week after receiving the Staff's response to the Applicant's interrogatories. Tr. 682.
(The Staff filed its response to the App ~ icant's interrogatories on February 25, 1981.)
The Applicant also filed certain requests for documents from the Staff.
The Staff advised it was attempting to segregate the documents from other regulatory material (some possibly privileged) and provide the non-privileged documents to the Applicant in Bethesda. We urged the Staff to attempt to work out such an arrangement; if not, the Applicant can bring the matter before us pursuant to 10 CFR 2.744(c) and (d). Tr. 718-23.
4.
In permitting the further deposition of Staff witness Kane, we ruled that one subject on which he could be questioned was 'iis review of Amendment 85 to tne FSAR. We also granted the Staff's request for permis-sion to take the deposition of a witness of the Applicant f amiliar with the preparation of Amendment 85. Tr. 710, 716. We expressed the hope that the deposition could occur within two weeks of Mr. Kane's deposition on Amend-ment 85.
Tr. 716.
, \\
1,s 5.
On January 22, 1981, Ms. Stamiris had filed a " Motion to Extend i:::
Time for Relevant Discovery," in which she in effect sought an extension of time to file motions to compel discovery against the Applicant. She advised us that she was dissatisfied with certain of the Applicant's answers to her discovery requests, that she was aware that additional answers were to be furnished her, but that she wished to preserve her right to file' a motion to.
compel if she believed the subsequent answers not to be satifactory. We asked the parties to attempt to reach agreement en this motion, and they did so: Ms. Stamiris may file motions to compel discovery within ten (10) days of service of further responses to various discovery requests to be furnished her by the Applicant. Tr. 797-799.
We also ruled that the Applicant could file new discovery requests of Ms. Stamiris concerning various matters raised by her, and that she could file second-round discovery requests against the Applicant.
Both parties were admonished that if they were to do so, they should file such requests "as soon as possible." Tr. 814. We similarly permitted the Applicant to file second-round discovery requests against the Staff, arising out of the Staff's FebruaFy 25, 1981 responses.
6.
We discussed the questions of burden of proof and burden of going forward in the OM portion of the proceeding (which we equated to a show-cause proceeding). We ruled that the Applicant had the burden of proof but that the Staff and intervenors had the burden of going forward with at least sufficient evidence to make a reasonable licensing board inquire fur-ther. See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101 (1976). We left open the question whether the Staff and intervenors would present their entire cases prior to the Applicant's presentation.
, Tr. 729-749. The question had originally arisen as a result of the Appli-cant's proposal that the Staff and intervenors file their direct testimony a week prior to the Applicant's filing of its testimony. We ruled that there would be simultaneous filing of prepared testimony.
7.
There was brief discussion of several substantive issues: namely, the ground acceleration for which corrective measures must be designed (Tr.
775-92) and the borings in the dike around the coolin_g pond (Tr. 817-21).
We left most of the discussion of issues for consideration at another pre-hearing conference, tentatively set for the week of March 23, 1981.
8.
We established the following tentative schedule for the soils settlement portion of the proceeding (to which all parties agreed):
1.
Last day for filing April 13,1981.
motions for sumary disposition.
2.
Simultaneous filing May 18,1981 of direct testimony.
3.
Evidentiary hearing Wee'Ks comencing June 15, July 6, 13, 27, August 3.
4.
Proposed findings Schedule set forth in 10 2,754(a),
and conclusions except that intervenors will be afforded 15 days after receipt of the Applicant's proposed findings to file their findings, and the Staff will have 10 days following intervenors' filings to submit its propcsals.
The Board noted that it would take approximately 60 days following date of filing for it to rule on motions for sumary disposition.
Because such ruling could not precede t.he filing of testimony, the Board suggested that such motions would perhaps not be appropriate and in any event should be kept to a minimum.
________L
,.. The Applicant advised that it was not undertaking construction 9.
The Board activities in the areas affected by the soils settlement matter.
inquired whether any of the ongoing or proposed near-term construction activities could have an impact on the soils settlement remedies being proposed by the Staff.
(We assumed that construction activities would not impact the remedies being proposed by the Applicant.) Neither the Staff nor We advised the the Applicant could definitively respond to our inquiry.
Staff that, if construction activities would have an adverse impact on the Staff's proposed remedies, the Staff should present evidence to that effect during the first week of the hearing (June 15-19), so that we could consider whether any halt in planned or on-going construction activities would be appropriate pending resolution of the soils settlement questions.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1r/w f016 A w, Charles Bechnoefer, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of February 1981.
.