ML19344A281

Memorandum in Support of Util Motion for Order Establishing Definite Procedures for Future Conduct of Proceedings. Precise Schedule W/Appropriate Prehearing Procedures Would Be Beneficial.Order Should Be Granted.Time Table Encl

ML19344A281
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/13/1976
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML19344A273	List: ML19344A272 ML19344A281
References
NUDOCS 8008070660
Download: ML19344A281 (22)

Text

a s

(_) -

Daccmber 13, 1976 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-329

)

50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING DEFINITE PROCEDURES FOR THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS In view of the lack of progress on substantive issues at the hearings which took place-in Midland, Michigan on November 30 - December 3, 1976, the extensive requests for additional discovery made by counsel for Intervenors at those hearings, and' Consumers Power Company's (" Licensee")

view that the prompt resolution of this matter is in the best interest.of~all the parties, Licenseg believes that it is imperat.'.ve that.this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

'(" Board") immediately adopt ~ and clearly set forth specific procedures and schedules for the future conduct of these

. proceedings.

Licensee is concerned that, should the Board 4

fail to.immediately adopt a. specific set of step-by-step

. procedures, the proceedings.will continue to be begged

-down in lawyers' arguments regarding procedural matters 8008070.[ g

4 u

'and ever-widening requests for_ discovery, instead of coming

~

.to grips with.the substantive issues'and movingitoward a I

resolution of those issues on the basis of a sound eviden-tiary. record.

Licensee does not believe that'it would be feasible

' to complete production and_ inspection of all documents requested j

by Intervenors at'the hearings of November 30 - December 3.

prior to February 1,~1977.

Further. requests _would extend

?

~ this period...As a result, Licensee believes that, in order to proceed toward an expedi,tious resolution of this proceeding, the Board must choose so either:

(1) proceed with the

. suspension hearing on the ~ basis of limited. discovery (in much theLsame way as a court would proceed with a hearing on j

a motion for a preliminary injunction).and provide for full

' discovery prior to a full hearing on the~ merits of the remanded

- issues;for-(2) proceed with full discovery now, consolidate the suspension hearing with the hearing on the remanded issues, and convene as rapidly as possible a hearing on the merits of all the'i'ssues.

Consolidation of the_ hearings is the-only reasonable alternative, since-if full discovery is s

1 o.rdered now,:the suspension hearing could.not be convened

(

prior to.early March while a reasonable schedule (as herein-af ter set forth) 'could lead to convening of. a hearing 'on -

the remanded issues-by late.May-or early1 June, 1977.

Con-

. solidation'would also'be--the most' efficient procedure since completion of fullidiscovery prior to the suspension hearing

. wouldfalso:resultLin the substantial completion of' discovery r

e

.w.,,,

e e-

-s, e

--r-e

.-g y

w

- ~

,~w,

n,-

m

-for the' full! hearing:on the merits because the? issues to

.be: considered at the. suspension hearing encompass all.

of: th'e: issues to be considered at the full hearing on th'e remanded issues.

It'is~ Licensee's position,that a review of the l

July 21, 1976 District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in Aeschliman v.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Nos. 73-1776L and.73-1867). ("Aeschliman") ar.d ' subsequent Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" ori" Commission")' orders in this proceeding' provide the Board 1with the authority t'o proceed in whichever manner it chooses..

< The Court of Appeals in Aeschliman held that "[T]he orders' granting construction permits for the Midland reactors are hereby, remanded for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion."- Slip op., pp. 22-23.

Consequently, the Court'did:not reverse ~the NRC's action in issuing the Midland construction. permits, or. vacate cn suspend the permits, but merely remanded for'further proceedings.

That the Court consciously chose not to reverse, vacate or suspend is clearly! evidenced by its statement in the companion case of

~

MRDC v. NRC ; (No.. 74-13 85,.74-1.58 6), July. 24, ~ 197 6 :

Stripped ~of-rhetoric, this means

'that the" Commission may reach the same resultion an adequate record--which,'of 2 course, is why we romand rather than reverse. -At p. 41, n. 60.

Thus,:the; Court l clearly indicated that summary suspension

!o'r' vacation.of the..constructidn-permits.in NRDC v. NRC and:Aeschliman'islinappropriate. 'It is important to note that-

'the Court tookithisiposition-in-the-face of specific requests

~

w

, ~

c 1

for both reversal and injunctive relief by Intervenors in Aeschliman.

See Brief for Petitioners in No. 73-1867 at 68 (Feb. 25, 1974); Reply Brief for Petitioners in No. 73-1867 at 33 (June 20, 1974); Appellate Brief for Petitioners in No.-73-1776 at 42 (Oct. 26, 1973).

On August 13,.1976, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its General Statement of Policy -- Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (Docket RM-50-3] (41 T.R.

at 34,707, August 16, 1976), in which it stated that:

i Since we have decided that reprocessing and waste management issues should be treated generically by rulemaking rather than on.a case-by-case basis, the initial question on remand of the Vermont Yankee and Midland orders will be whether the licenses should be continued, modified, or suspended until an interim-rule has been l

made effective.

In resolving this ques-l tion,-the Commission intends to assign l

the matter to. licensing boards with instructions to call for briefs from the l

parties followed by evidentiary hearings if necessary.

With regard to issues, other than the reprocessing and waste l

management issues, remanded in Aeschliman, the Commission stated in a footnote:

'An evidentiary hearing on other issues will be required in. Midland, barring further re-view.

That hearing, however, should not be

. commenced until the Midland decision has become final.

On August 16, 1976, the Commission issued its Memorandum and Order reconvening this Board, ordering it to consider whether the construction. permits should be continued, modified or suspended pending the effectiveness of an interim fuel cycle h'

~

2 N

i 1

rule;(including the holding of evidentiary hearings on that issue, if necessary) and stating that no hearing or the merits of the other issues remanded by the Court of Appeals' would be appropriate until the decision of the Court became final.

On September 3, 1976, Intervenors filed a Motion to halt construction of the Midland facility pending comple-tion of remanded hearings, or in the alternative for an NRC order to this Board which would make clear that the Board should consider in connection with suspension of construction j

all of the issues remanded by the Court, and not just the fuel cycle issue.

Also on September 3, 1976, the Court issued its mandate in Aeschliman.

On September 14, 1976, the Commissi'on issued its l

Memorandum and Order it. this matter directing that the Board l

l "should consider all issues which have been remanded to the

. Commission by the Court of Appeals" and further directing the Board "to undertake any necessary proceedings."

In a.second Memorandum and Order, issued on the same date, in the Vermont Yankee (Docket No. 50-271) and tiidir.nd (Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330) cases, the commission discussed, i

in a footnote on page 5, this Board's role in addressing sus-pension and considering the other substantive issues remanded.

This footnote is somewhat ambiguous, but it concludes as follows:

l Hearings on the issue of suspension are immediately ripe and should be addressed by the hearing board.

The question of scheduling hearings'on the. merits of

.the remanded questions is left to the

~

c,..

c

,,~

v i,

4-

'discretionLof the hearing board-on a-

~

consideration of all relevant factors.

1 4

This' footnote, taken~in. context, would appear.to indicate i

c

}

that the question of suspension should beLaddressed by i

[

this Board,'that thefhearir21 already scheduled by the Board L

t on-the fuel cycle suspension' question should proceed and i'

that the Board should exercise it's -discretion in de rmining.

whether hearings.would also-be necessary on suspension'on 3

l suspension'on:the basis of the other remanded issues.

This 1

l reading is supported'by the accompanying Memorandum and I

order quoted above which merely instructs the Board to l

f-l consider all of the remanded issues and to undertake such

' t proceedingslas it deems necessary.

Despite its everall i

[

ambiguity, it seems clear that the Order does not require hearin'gs.on suspension on-the basis of the remande'd issues

{.

other'than1the fuel cycle, but does require that consideration A

belgiven to,them.in any determination on whether or not to j

suspend.- It'is also important to note that the NRC has

~

?

clearly stated that actions summarily suspending the construc-

~

tion permits, merely.because of the remand, are not appropriate.

J t

Memorandum and order of September 14,-1976 in Vermont-Yankee 4

'(DocketLMo.1 50-271) L and Midland (Docket #cs. 50-329, 50-330) t-1 cases,1p. 7.

sof course,: this is' consonant with the position j

taken/by the Court, aus explained supra.

4 L Subsequent to (1). the. action of,the~ Court of Appeals on' October 18,L1976 in staying;its' mandate in NRDC v. NRC

[-

i (No. [74-1385', <74-15'8 6) 'and. its; statement

~

1 that the Commission

- could: continue l licensing activities cui condition that.any_

.1-

,e, Y

A V e s'-%

e

--6 e

it v-

' vw d 9-wt-

• '91 ifPer war---

+--ws'rwg

1. y mur -fe-y-3

-em+T-

-t F q+-en c-e g e gr-s -y w--( t-pp gtyr' "y& yyy wwym-9'4*--ag M -tg - 57 ms--ahb+e y -- $ p

.D.,

4 licenses granted'between July 21, 1976'and such-time when the fmandate issued be: subject to the outcome of the proceedings-

-therein~; ' and (2). the issuance, ' on October '13,1976, by the Commission of a supplement to its Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel' Cycle and its notice.of proposed rulemaking, the

' Commission issued its. Supplemental General Statement of Policy

-- Environmental Effects of the Uraniub Fuel Cycle on Ncvember 5, 1976. cIn.this Supplemental General Statement of Policy, the Commission statec With respect to show cause-type proceedings initiated by others pursuant 1to the August 16, 1976 General Statement of Policy, which are presently.under way, the Memoranda and Orders we are issuing:today in those proceed-ings have the effect of^ suspending them pending anticipated adoption of~an interim rule.

In its. Memorandum and Order issued in the Seabrook

. proceedings (Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444) on November 5, 1976, the Commission f

indicated in a-footnote at p. 31 that the Midland proceeding should continue with regard to all issues other than the fuel cycle issue.

~In its Order issued the same date in the Midland

. proceeding, the Commission stated that its instructions to

~

-t this Board'of September 14,-1976,. except for fuel cycle matters, should :be adhered to.

Read together,-these memoranda and orders appear to.

(1) require this Board to consider whether the construc-

- tion permits 1should be suspended in light of'the rema.nded

. issues..(othe'r than :the. fuel cycle issue) ; (2) not require F

hearings on the suspension question; (3) instruct the Board

+y

-7.,.v,p

^'

3 that suspension is not to be summarily determined; and (4) require the: Board to institute such proceedings as it' Ldeems proper.with? regard to substantive compliance with~the remanded: issues other than the_-fuel' cycle issue.

In this context, it is now up to this Board to determine the most practical and expeditious procedure for resolution of the. issues remanded in Aeschliman.

If it decides that hearings on the suspension question would'be.. pointless prior to the full discovery requested by Intervenors, and that the better procedure would be to combine the suspension hearing with thefhearing on the remanded issues, and-proceed to such a hearing as soon as possible, then it should so order and inform the NRC of.its conclusions.

If on the other hand, it believes it more expedient to proceed.with the suspension hearings in-January, on the basis of limited dis-covery, :it should. so order.

As shown below, it is both impractical and inefficient under the circumstances of this case to attempt to have it both ways by requiring full dis-covery prior to a suspension hearing and following the conclusion of that proceeding, move to a second hearinc on the remanded issues.

(

It should be re-emphasized that a decision by this Board to' consolidate theLtwo proceedings should not lead

~

to_an immediate and summary suspension.

Suspension is clearly not? required'by_the. remand.

The NRC has stated that such summary action would be inappropriate (Memorandum and Order

,of September 14, 1976 in Vermont Yankee and Midland, p.

7)

-and the court'of Appeals so indicated in its opinions in

n v

- NRDC v. NRC and Aeschliman (supra).

Moreover, the extremely serious effects of such a delay and the fact that continued construction would~not significantly impact-the rights or legal positions of Intervenors (construction has already been allowed to' continue for several months due to Inter-venors' request for continuances) would strongly militate against such a. suspension.

Licensee has been prepared and willing to proceed with the suspension hearing since 4

~

October 5,-1976, the first date scheduled by this Board.

Since-any further. delay in the suspension hearings.would be due to the extensive discovery requests of Intervenors, mada for the first time during the'first week of hearings, it would be totally inappropriate to penalize Licensee because it will require a substantial amount of time to comply with 4

discovery requests.-

In determining.how it wishes to proceed, the Board should take into account a number of factors.

First, the suspension hearing was originally. set for October 5, 1976 and was twice continued at the request of the Intervenors.

Second,.other than a letter to counsel for The Dow Chemical

, Company which requested only that documents be produced at

.the hearing,cthe Intervenors did not request discovery, either

~ formally.or informally, until'the first week of~the hearings.

Third, numerous documents were made available by Licensee to all parties -_on. November 3,1976 -(See attached Exhibit A. ), other documents were provided by Licensee to all parties in early November,1976 7(See attached Exhibit B.),- and ' finally when, at

.theihearing, the Intervenor requested certain categories of.the

.e

~

~

m.

documents which had~been available on November-3, 1976, they were immediately provided.

(See. attached Exhibit C.)~

Fourth, L

the-amount'of time required for the parties.to comply fully with-Intervenors'-discovery. requests first made foraally at the: hearing on the week of November 30 to December 3, 1976.

.Fifth, the dates.on which the Staff will publish the Supple-mental Environmental Statements.

Sixth, proposed schedules

.for the : suspension hearing and the hearing on the remanded

-issues.

The first-factor is a matter of record on which Licensee will'not expand.

With regard to the second and third i

factors, Intervenorse conducted no discovery prior to last week's hearings, although they were afforded an opportunity to conduct extensive document. discovery.

On October 21, 1976,

-this Board issuedLits Order in which-it opened discovery.

On October 29,.1976, Licensee mailed to all parties and this Board its " Notice of Availability of Documents for Insp~ection,"

by which it announced the availability for inspection and copying as of November 3, 1976 at the offices of Licensee i

in Jackson',. Michigan _of documents relating to the testimony to.be submitted.at the suspension hearing.

(See Exhibit A.)

Licensee never received a request from Intervenors prior Jto.the: hearing-to' inspect these documents or any other documents.

.Nor: did. it ever receive a ' request to make -such documents avail--

.able-for inspection'at any other_ location.

On November 10, 1973, -Licensee hand delivered i

to theLoffice~of Intervenors' counsel in Chicago, Illinois

- copies of documentsLand information which had been b

e s--y

,em-

,a

--m~

w-v---

-- ^ +- '*

furnished to the NRC' Staff, pursuant to specific requests made by the Staff.

Additional documents were mailed to

.Intervenors counsel after they had been requested by and provided to the NRC Staff.

(See Exhibit B.)

A receipt for the hand delivered documents and the cover letters for the remaining documents _are attached as Exhibit D.

Again, nothing was-heard from Intervenors regarding said documents, nor were'any requests made for additional documents.

Finally, as previously mentioned, Licensee brought all of the

' documents which had been available for inspection at Jackson since November 3rd to the hearings and made-them available to Intervenors' counsel for inspection.

The only step toward discovery taken at-all by Intervenors was a-letter to counsel for The Dow Chemical Company-("Dow")-dated September 27, 1976 in which a very broad request for documents was made with a further request that such documents be "available at said hearings."

Inter-venors never requested that such documents be made available for inspection prior to the hearing.

On-October 12, 1976, Dow's' counsel ~ wrote to counsel for Intervenors indicating that Dow did.not consider itself a_ party,to these proceedings and s

suggesting;that requests for Dow documents be directed to

-Licensee.- On October 27, 1976 counsel for Intervenors wrote to Dow's counsel taking the position that Dow is a party to the proceedingfandsstating._that he would look to Dow for compliance:with their-discovery request.

On October 29, 1976, E

Dow's counsel wrote to Intervenors' counsel. indicating that l

-Dow believed it was no? longer a party-to the proceedings

m

.y.

12-.

and-stating _that;Dow was-requesting. Licensee to' indicate what Dow documents-it would requestLbe' produced through Licensee.

Licensee' requested Dow to produce:through Licensee documents which Dow had relied _upon in the preparation of' testimony to be sponsored by Mr. Temple.

These documents-were selected byz Dow, pr' vided to Licensee and made available o

on November 3rd along with Licensee's documents referred to above.- 'Again,1no. request was ever directed to Licensee by Intervenors with regard to Dow's documents and no attempt was made to examine those documents in Jackson or to1 request

.their. production elsewhere.

Dow did:have available.at the hearings and produced

'for-inspection by.Intervenors' counsel a number of documents responsive.to the initial informal request for production ini Intervenors. - These documents are listed in the t anscript at pages 206-212, and a later batch of documents are listed at transcript pages 293-298, which pages are attached as

- Exhibit E' hereto.

Consequently, at or prior to the first s

. juncture at-which-Intervenors' counsel expressed any interest in_ inspecting documents, the time of the hearing, all of a

the documents listed in. Exhibits A, B, C and E had-been or 4

were made available for-his inspection.

With regar'd!to the fourth factor, Dow's counsel.

indicated the=large quantity of documents which would have

' to be reviewed inLresponse to_the broad document request made-by Intervenors' counsel:

Last night as a result of the dis-cussionsaof yesterday, we reviewed the; documents which are or~might be

+

___=*-y>

.w c.-

+.

--.3+

q

,,4-

-=-,-'

w.

m

.g

~

~ relevant toLthe request'of~the Interven-

- I ors for. generally the Dow documents

. relating-to the-nuclear plant, going 4

-back to the inception.

There.is one large room which we were first visited andnin that room there1are four'four-drawer cabinets, three five-drawer cabinets and one n

Jthree-drawer cabinets, a total of 34 file' drawers, allifull of documents of the character described.

InJaddition, there are-three file boxes,-each'approximately a half-file drawer in size and 10 metal shelves, three feet;1ong.

There'are four drawers

'in:the-legal department and.then in addition to the documents'which were obvious and.which we searched through last night in an effort :to comply, there are of course documents all over the company, including as far away as Cal-

.ifornia and perhaps otherwise, in the files of persons who were_at one time related to this project'back to its

. inception in 1966 or.1967.

Clearly, it was inpossible to review all of'those last night and would be im-

.possible for us no matter how many people were' involved to do it in any brief span

-of time.

(Tr. 238)

Dow's counsel stated that it would.take on the order of one to two weeks to produce the categories.of documents which he and Intervenors-had agreed deserved priority.

Tr. 712-731, s

.attached as Exhibit F.

.Beyond that, Dow has' proposed

-to make available a' general index of the other types of

. documents in its files.

This index will then have to be re-viewed by the-other parties, specific requests for production will:havesto be:made, objections to production and claims of privilege will then have to be" filed, considered and ruled T

y e-h"'

t'-

• W

_ _ _14 _.-

5-

~

upon, a canrch'for such documents'not immediately available t

vill haveito be instituted; (which could range to files at Lmany widely dispersed locations far beyond the area of. Midland,

Michigan), - production will have to be made 'and a period -of time will1have-to be allowed-for counsel to inspect.the docu-ments. - All of this, if -it: is to be - done in an orderly, efficient -fashion 'aill take a substantial period of time.

In' addition,'IntervenorsLalso requested for the.,

first time,lat_the hearings that Licensee' produce nine cate-gories of documents.

'See Tr. 760-767, attached hereto as.

Exhibit G.

Pursuant to this Board's order, counsel for Licensee has identified the majority of files containing documents relating to those requests and the Licensee is in the process of reproducing them so they may.be brought to Chicago for review by its1 counsel and subsequent inspection.

by the otherLparties.

While some of the documents will be available for~ inspection on Monday, December 13, 1976, they.

9 will not be available in their entirety until the end of 1

January due to the large number of documents which must be.

e reviewed. ~ For example,.there are approximately 200 computer models used to derive the short-term load forecast above'and t

many ofithese programs will-be claimed as proprietary by Licensee. :While it isLdifficult to predict the total number cWE ' documents encompassed by the ' request since all of the

-documents have not yet been reproduced, counsel expects that there will be approximately 35 to 45 file drawers of material.

-With regard to the fifth-factor, the availability o'f the Supplemental Environmental. Statements, the Staff has

~

M.

~

.ctated that:tha Draft Statement will be'available on-Januarysl5,ElS76fand the Final StatementLon April' 15, 1976.

The-date of thecFinalISupplemental Environmental' Statement is~extremelyfimportant since-the Commission's' Regulations require that the Final ~ Statement be made available to the public and parties 3 prior to the' Staff presenting-its position.

on environmental issues in anyl proceeding. -10 ' CFR 51.52 (a)

~

'As to the sixth factor, the proposed schedules for

~

the suspension and remand proceedings, it is clear from the previous discussion that the suspension hearing.could be resumed at'anyftime if the Board determined that the documents previously supplied by the Licensee and Dow were' sufficient.

If the Board rules thatLlimited additional. discovery 11s required,-it might be possible to begin the suspension hearing by.the middle of January._ However, if. full' discovery is required'by the Board,.the: suspension hearings could'not resume until March, assuming a' period of four. weeks for

.Intervenors to inspect the documents and prepare their case.

LThefhearing on the remanded issues-could begin idmediately after. April-15, 1977, the date of publication of

• /

the Final Statement,1under the Commission's Regulations.~

Indeed,if'theBoard'should'determinethabadditional1 dis-covery.is not' required, or that only limited additional?

It would prob' ably beimore realistic, however, to assume aLperiod:of-20 to 30 days between publication of the Final-Statement and commencement:of the hearing.on the remanded:

issues.since the parties.will-need same additional ~ time to

-review that-Statement..

-[

N

' r.

diccovery.ic required, for the suspension hearing and that hearing is begun.in January, 1977,.the hearing on the remanded issues'could commence in early June, 1977.

As shown by Licensee's attached Table II, such c schedule would provide for full discovery rights prior to the-June, 1977 hearing on.the' remanded issues.

However,-if full discovery is required prior to the suspension hearings and the Board does not consolidate the two hearings, the time required to com-plete the suspension proceeding will force the nearings on the remanded ~ issues to commence in late summer or early fall of 1977.

The actual date would depend upon whether suspension hearings in March would' delay the dates set for release of the Environmental Statements, and if so, for how long.

In addition, the Board must allow time for counsel to write findings of fact for the suspension proceeding and then prepare.for the hearing on the remanded issues prior to commencing that proceeding.

After considering.the above-six factors, the Board must weigh them and determine which course of action trill provide the most orderly and expeditious procedure for resolving this entire proceeding.

The Board must also weigh t

the benefits of allowing completion of full discovery prior to the(convening ofEany further hearings:. avoiding piece-meal discovery,. minimizing misunderstanding Latween the parties and the Board as to what documents have and have not been produced, and-permitting'the Board to make its rulings on theLbasis of~a better understanding of the facts.

These-7

- 'l:

cdvantagcc can bs rcalizcd without any substantial loss of

-timeLif the hearings are consolidated, but_if they are not,

.the' Board.must determine whether these advantages are out-

~

-weighed'by'.the additional time which would be required to reach a decision in both the suspension proceeding and the proceeding on the remanded issues.

If this Board does require full discovery prior to the suspension hearing it must then decide whether the public interest is best served by. (1)- scheduling two ' proceedings, one in March on suspension.

'and one in late summer on the remanded issues or (2) combining L

the suspension hearing and the hearing on remanded issues into one hearingLscheduled for early June, 1977.

Licensee believes that a procedure which would allow full discovery now and the conducting of two separate proceedings is not-in the'public interest, since it would postpone a decision l

by this Board on the remanded issues until late fall of 1977.

Licensee's position is that if the Board believes it advisable toJcomplete discovery prior to any further l

hearings in'this matter,.it should establish step-by-step pre-hearingLprocedures and a schedule designed to result

- in combined hearings on the suspension issues and remanded issues no later than June of 1977.

Further(more, Licensee-believes that the-documents already provided Intervenors are adequate for conduct of a suspension hearing, and that

' this Board would be justified in ordering that such a

. hearing be commenced at-the earliest date, prior to proceeding further with discovery.'

~Whichsvur alternativo.tha Board-chooses, the

'conductiof the~ case, to date, teaches that it must establish precise. procedures and schedules, to guide the parties in the conduct of this proceeding.

This is necessary, not only to organize these proceedings, but also to establish

~a definite time period for the commencement of hearings, and thus a projection as-to the date of their conclusion.

With-out this, it will be difficult, if.not impossible, to project costs and 9ther effects of delay and to analyze the alternative of. abandonment of Midland and proceeding with an alternate scurce of generating capacity.

Indeed, without such an Order,

'this Board could. find itself in the same position as the Appeal Board in -the Seabrook case which could not set forth a time period for the possible suspension period.

In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et. al.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 &-2) Memorandum and Order, September 30, 1976 ALAB-349 at pp. 26-34 and 74.

A precise schedule with appropriate pre-hearing procedures would redound to everyone's benefit.

Tables I and II, attached hereto set forth for the Board's consideration suggested procedures and schedules for the future conduct of the proceedings (under each of the

.two alternatives Licensee believes is av,ailable to the Board.

1

.s

~

TABLE I' PROPOSED-PROCEDURES FOR REMAND PROCEEDING

-IF. SUSPENSION HEARING IS. COMBINED WITH HEARING ON THE REMANDED ISSUES

'10/22/76' ER information~was made available'by Licensee.

.11/03/76 Documents re ER material and prepared. testimony was made available for inspection by Licensee.

11/29 -

1. Hearings in Midland.

Document production requests made

~

12/03/76 and' review and production.of requested documents begins.

.12/14/76-Pretrial hearing.

Remainder of schedule established.

12/3 -

Production of requested documents proceeds.

2/01/77 j

12/28/76 Objections, if any, and claims of privilege to document requests due.

1/05/77 Briefs on objections and claims of privilege.

All parties file contentions and related discovery requests in consequence of clarified ACRS letter.

1/12/77 Reply.. briefs on objections and claims of privilege.

1/15/77 Draft Supplemental Es issued for comment together with supporting ~ Staff documents.

1/20/77 Rulings. on objections :and privilege claims.

2/01/77--

Completion:of document production _on requests made on or prior to 12/3/76.

Alliparties file further. discovery requests re Supplemental ER and-Supplemental Draft ES.

Other parties file objections'to contentions and to requests for discovery re clarified ACRS letter.

Parties = request discovery with respect to.1/5/76 contentions submitted by others.

(

2/11/77

. Objections to 2/1/77 discovery requests.

~2/18/77

. Rulings on outstanding objections.

13/14/77

~ Compliance with all outstanding allowed discovery requests.

3/24/7.7~

P'arties designate contentions re energy conservation

-and-Dow; issues.

l 1

TABLE I ~ (cont ' d. )

3/31/77.

, Objections?to contentions:and making of discovery re-

- quests.to'other, parties' filing contentions re contentions'

-are due.

-4/15/77 Supplemental Final ES' issued and any additional

- back-up material'made available.

'4/22/77

. Any additiona1Ldiscovery-requests re Supplemental Final-ES'and back-up material made available due.

4/29/77 -

- All. objections-'to outstandingfdiscovery requests due.

5/06/77-Rulings'on all outstanding matters.

'5/20/77-All: allowed discovery requests to'be complied with and written testimony filed.-

6/06/77 Hearing [ Commences.

10 days Lafter~ con-

"clusion of hoarings Proposed findings and conclusions due.

4 9

0

N, TABLE.II'

\\

PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR REMAND PROCEEDING-

.IF SUSPENSION PROCEEDING GOES FORWARD WITH EITHER

~

NO FURTHER DISCOVERY OR WITH LIMITED DISCOVERY I

10/22/76 ER information t as made available by Licensee.

'11/03/76 Documents re ER material and prepared testimony was

.made available for inspection by Licensee.

11/29 -

Hearings in Midland.

Document. production requests made 12/03/76 and review and production of requested documents begins.

'12/14/76 Pretrial hearing.

Remainder of schedule for hearings on suspension and remanded issues established.

Parameters of any limited additional discovery prior to suspension hearing established.

1/05/77 Any limited discovery for suspension hearing completed.

Objections, if any,-and claims of privilege to document requests on full discovery due.

1/12/77 Briefs.on objections and claims of privilege re full discovery due.

1/15/77 Draft Supplemental Es issued for comment together with supporting Staff documents.

1/18/77 Suspension hearing commences.. Ten days after completion of hearing, : findings of fact and conclusions of law are due.

2/15/77 All parties file contentions and related discovery requests in consequence of clarified ACRS letter.

Reply briefs on objections and claims of privilege.

All parties file'further discovery requests re Supplement.al ER and Supplemental Draft ES.

2/25/77

-Rulings on objections and privilege claims.

Other parties file objections to contentions and to reqeusts for discovery re clarified ACRS letter.

Parties request discovery' with respect to 2/15/77 contentions submitted by others.

3/11/77 Completion of document production on request made on or

. prior to 12/3/76.

'3/18/77 Objections to 2/18/77.and 2/25/77 discovery requests.

3/25/77E Rulings on outstanding objectidns.

4/15/77 Supplemental Final ES issued and any additional

.back-up~ material made available.

Compliance with'all outstanding allowed discovery l

requests.

9-e w

-w or d

3 TABLE II~(cont'd.)

-4/22/77 Parties designate contentions re energy conservation and Dow' issues.

Any additional disccvery requests re Supplemental Final-ES and-back-up material made available due.-

4/29/77' Objections to contentions and making.of discovely requests'to other' parties filing' contentions re contentions are due.

5/06/77 All objections to outstanding discovery requests due.

5/13/77 Rulings on all outstanding matters.

5/27/77 All' allowed discovery requests to be complied with and written testimony filkd.

6/13/77L Hearing commeness.

-10 days after con-clusion of hearings..

Proposed' findings and conclusions due.

t i

,o-

.