ML20028A510

Forwards NRC 821115 Ltr to Util,Advising That NRC Will Voluntarily Produce Appropriate Witness Re NRC Interpretation of Term Important to Safety. Util 821115 Request for Subpoenas Withdrawn

ML20028A510
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	11/16/1982
From:	Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Callihan A, Cole R, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8211220246
Download: ML20028A510 (2)

Text

9 -

0

• e,*

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT WW DOCXETED tt20 CONNECTICUT AVENUE.N W e SulTE 840 WASHINGTON. O C 20036 E DWARD S. lSHAM. '872 1902 202 833 9730 CHICAGO OFFICE

" = '# 5tr I'"J '82 WV 19 P1 fEs"E"*%7&^

TELEPHONE 312 558-7500 November 16, 1982 TEtEus28 cr u n; SECFLIARY Ivan W. Smith, Esg, Dr. Ri;cklard1tF4 SC61%

Administrative Judge and AdministratWdHJudge Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c/o Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, TN 37830 RE: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Gentlemen:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter, dated November 15, 1982, from Richard J. Rawson, Counsel for the NRC Staff.

Mr. Rawson's letter indicates that the Staff will voluntarily produce an appropriate witness or witnesses and any pertinent documents with respect to the question of Staff's interpreta-tion of the term "important to safety" as that subject is more extensively explained in Commonwealth Edison Company's Appli-cation for Subpoena filed with the Licensing Board yesterday.

Accordingly, I hereby withdraw my November 15 request for subpoenas in view of the representation made by Mr. Rawson.

I, of course, reserve the right to renew the application for subpoena should a disagreement arise with respect to the Staff's selection of deposition witnesses.

Sincerely, Joseph Gallo One of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company Encl.: As stated, cc: Service List JG/ spa 8211220246 821116 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G PDR

,P Sg Q J

q [ ,

e

' - {/ \o, UNITED STATcS y" ,  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$. $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% ,,\,, # November 15, 1982 Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 870 Washington, DC 20036 In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455

Dear Mr. Gallo:

I am in receipt of a copy of your application to the Licensing Board for the issuance of a subpoena to the Executive Director for Operations or his designee (s) regarding the Staff's use of the term "important to safety."

As I told you in our telephone conversation this afterncon, it appears to me that you and I misunderstood one another in our conversation this morning, with the result that you have requested action by the Licensing Boa-d which is not authorized by the Commission's Rules of Practice.

You asked this morning whether the Staff was willing voluntarily to produce for deposition a witness on the subject of safety classification terminology and the November 20, 1981 memorandum from Harold Denton to all NRR personnel on standard definitions for commonly-used safety classification terms. I told you that the Staff preferred that a formal request be made for such a depo-sition in accordance with the Commission's rules. I did not mention subpoenas and it was not my intention to suggest to you that a subpoena would be necessary or appropriate. Under 10 CFR $ 2.720(h)(1), it appears issuance of a subpoena to obtain the testimony of NRC personnel is not appropriate.

Rather, the regulations provide that "the NRC Staff will make available one or more witnesses designated by the Executive Director for Operations, for oral examination . . . regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the issues in the proceeding."

We agreed this afternoon that you would withdraw your application in order to save the Board and the parties the trouble of formal response and disposition of the application. We will construe your application for subpoenas as a formal request for depositions under 10 CFR 5 2.720(h)(2)(i) and make an appropriate witness (or witnesses) and documents available. I will be in touch with you later this week as to the identity of such a witness or witnesses and to discuss a mutually convenient schedule and location for the document production and deposition.

Sincerely, r

J(.J-q,y fC J k~~

Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff