ML20032B218
| ML20032B218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1981 |
| From: | Guild R GUILD, R. |
| To: | Callihan D, Foster R, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111050306 | |
| Download: ML20032B218 (3) | |
Text
FILAIr3C002S?O W OE 1
ROBERT GUILD Arroamy at uw DOCKETED 314 PALL MALL USNRC COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201
'81 NOV -2 P5:02 TELEPHONE 803-2524929 October 28, 1981 0FFICE OF SECRETMi?
DOCKETING & SERVICL Chairman James L. Kelley Dr. Richard F.
Fos ter BRANCH Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 4263 Board Panel Sunriver, Oregon 97701 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission e / rig Washington, D.C.
20555 b
,@ ^
O Dr. Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation Post Office Box Y E
NOVO 41981 -
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
~
v.s. gy "'
In the Matter of 5V Duke Power Company, et al.
,x 4
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
"\\
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Dear Sirs:
The following comments are responsive to the Board's Order of October 11,. 1981, asking our views on Duke's proposals for scheduling in this matter.
Some a-lterations to their proposal are necessary due to conflicting obligations and may otherwise be appropriate to permit fruitful efforts toward stipulations.
In late September petitioner Palmetto Alliance, through coun-sel, initiated discussions with William L. Porter, Esquire, of Duke Power Company regarding the desirability of seeking agree-ment on contentions to be litigated in this proceeding.
Since both Mr. Porter and I were involved in litigating Duhe's gen-eral rate increase application before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in hearings then set to extend through Oc-tcber 23, 1981, we anticipated that our first opportunity to meet on contentions would not occur until the week of October 26.
Only on October 20, 1981 after some difficulties did this petitioner acquire a loaned copy of the F.S.A.R. and other li-cense application documents from the State of South Carolina for use in drafting contentions.
The initial meeting between Palmetto Alliance and the Applicants is now set for October 30, 1981.
We anticipate the possible need for further such meet-ings thereafter.
Thus it may be appropriate to allow more than the 17 days which would remain available for further dis-cussions on stipulated contentions as contemplated by Duke's
@O]
proposed November 16, 1981 filing deadline.
S
/[0 8111050306 811028 PDR ADOCK 05000413 o
PDR L
.. o.
Obligations of this counsel in two other proceedings present serious conflicts with Duke's proposed scheduling of the ini-tial prehearing conference in this case for the week of December 14, 1981.
In its rate increase proceeding before the State Public Service Commission, Docket No. 80-378-E, Duke filed a Motion on October 15, 1981 for the scheduling of further evidentiary hearings during the month of December 1981 to consider the operating status and regulatory treat-ment for its McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
Over the opposition of my client in that case, the South Carolina Welfare Rights Organization, I am today informed that the Commission has granted Duke's Motion and set such hearings to commence at 11 o' clock A.M.,
December 14, 1981.
I am committed to represent my client in reopened discovery, pre-paration and trial at that time on Duke's rate application.
The Palmetto Alliance is also a party to this rate proceeding although not represented therein by this lawyer.
Further, I am counsel f~or Fairfield United Action, an organi-zation which seeks intervention in another operating license proceeding, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-395, the Applicants in which are also represented by the firm of Debevoise and Liberman.
I am informed that further eviden-tiary hearings are now set in that proceeding for the full week of December 14, 1981.
My client's status in that case is presently the subject of an action for judicial review, Fairfield United Action - vs - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 81-2042, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
My client has maintained an active interest in the conduct of that proceeding looking toward its eventual readmission.
Moreover, at the suggestion of at least one member of the Appeals Board in ALAB-642 (June 1,
1981), Ms. Kohl, concurring, my client's members and I are attempting to furnish assistance to the sole remaining inter-venor in that case, and expect to be doing so during the hearings set for the week of December 14, 1981.
Performance of these obligations all during the week proposed for pre-hearing conference by the Applicants in this case would work a significant hardship on my clients and me.
Alternately, we would be prepared to participate in a first prehearing conference in this matter as early as the week of December 21, 1981 or at the Board's convenience in early January 1982.
Maintaining the timing sequence proposed by Duke we would suggest either a conference the week of December 21 with contentions due November 23 and responses due December 15; or a conference in January, e.g.
the week of January 4 with contentions due December 7 and responses due December 29.
In any event we request the time for further discussions on t
r the subject of stipulated contentions and the scheduling of the first prehearing conference for a date other than the week of December 14.
We trust that the parties' commitment to cooperation at this stage will lead to the. thorough and effective litigation of-the issues in this matter.
4 truly yours, 7
Y Robert Guild Attorney for Petitioner Palmetto Alliance, Inc.
BG:mw cc: service list 4
l
'l i
i P