ML20039B127
| ML20039B127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1981 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Perry S Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112220317 | |
| Download: ML20039B127 (1) | |
Text
-
mm r;~m p
L4& C
,(J.
&g
- w,
- ,. n w m,v ag h~
&d'y pW ~y l
110 x s p. -
/ %
< y 'li ~n.
j 1
';I f.:l QC "n
.l19g hp December 16, 1981 DISTRIBUTION
'D' Schinki 6
Spence Perry, Esq.
Gutierrez Associate General Counsel for Dewey National Security and Preparedness R eis/Lessy Federal Energy Management Agency S hanar/Engel hardt Room 840 Christenbury/Scinto 500 C Street, S.W.
Olmstead Washington, D.C.
20472 FF (2)
NRC Docket File: PDR/LPDR A.Schwencer In the Matter of J.Kerrigan Arizona Public Service Company, et al.
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, UnTtD, 2 and 3)
__ Docket Nos. STN 50-528. STN 50-529 and STN 50-530
Dear Mr. Perry:
Enclosed is a copy of the Prehearing Order in the Palo Verde proceeding.
It should be noted that testinony is required to be filed on March 15, 1982 and a hearing to begin on March 30, 1982.
At present, there are no contentions involving emergency plans. However, the Intervenor has a right to file contentions on that issue in the 30 day period after the State of Arizona submits its emergency plan to FEMA.
Sincerely, Edwin J. Reis Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
Enclosure:
As Stated 8112220317 811216'
~
G PDR
""C'>
12/ /81 nec rosu aie no,soisacu e24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "o e-32n24
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Administrative Judges:
Robprt M. Lazo, Chainnan Dr.; Richard F. Cole Dr. A. Dixon Callihan
)
In the Matter of:
Docket Nos. STN-50-528-OL ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Units 1, 2 and 3 Operating License
-)
Proceeding)
)
December 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PREHEARING CONFERENCE OF NOVEMBER 18, 1981 Pursuant to notice dated November 4~,1981,1I a second prehearing conference
/
in the above-identified proceeding was' held in Phoenix, Arizona on November 18, 1981.
Participants in the conference were the Joint Applicants, Arizona Public Service Company, et al., the NRC Staff, the Intervenor, Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan, and the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico.
All except the Intervenor were represented by counsel. Matters considered at the prehearing conference, agreements reached and rulings by the Licensing Board
~
are set forth hereinbelow.
i 1/ 46 F.R. 55461 (November 9, 1981) l nnq-
~
g, x
kf a L, V WV
2 I - The State of New Mexico On September 17, 1981, the State of New Mexico, by its Attorney General, filed a motion in which it requests the opportunity to participate in this proceeding as an interested state agency pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c).
~
In their answer dated 0,ctober 2,1981, Joint Applicants urge the Board to deny the motion to participate by the State of New Mexico because as they view the motion, the Attorney General wishes to represent the economic interests of certain New Mexico ratepayers, which is not a cognizable interest in NRC proceedings. On October 7, 1981, the NRC Staff filed a response which did not object to the, State's pa'rticipation but which requested a statement of specificity and'a delineation of the State's right to discovery at this late stage in the proceeding.
During a telephone conference on October 29, 1981, with all parties participating, the Chainnan of the Licensing Board set the date of November 13, 1981 for the State to f,ile a response to Joint Applicants' and
/
Staff's responses to its motion to participate. The response by the State
(
was duly filed on November 6, 1981. At the same time, the State submitted an amended motion to participate as an interested state agency.
At the opening of the prehearing conference on November 18, 1981, Joint Applicants provided the Board and parties with copies of their response (served that day) to the New itexico Attorney General's amended motion. The Board considered the written response, granted the Attorney General's motion l
2 for leave to amend and heard oral argument by all parties regarding the i
amended motion.
{
i i
I
3 The Joint Applicants again stated that they were opposed to the New Mexico Attorney General's participation in this proceeding.
Such opposition was based upon the ground that the Attorney General has failed to state an interest that is pertinent to the issues to be adjudicated.
The NRC Staff stated that it had no objection to the State's participation and the Intervenor urged the Boar'd to grant the amended motion.
Upon consideration of all of the views of the parties, the Board i
decided to grant the amended motion of the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico and ruled that the State could participate in this proceeding under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.7 5 (c) subject to following conditions:
(1) TheAttorneyGeneralag}reestota'ketheproceedingasitstandsandto be bound by all prior stipulations and Orders of the Board; (2) The Attorney i
General's participation will be limited to the litigation of Contentions 5 and 7; and (3) The Attorney General will not request a new discovery period.
In order to assist the Attorney Gen,eral in his preparation for hearing, the parties were directed to make ay6i}able to him for inspection and copying all discovery documents previously produced in this proceeding including answers to discovery requests.
II - Discovery Motions Following discussion regarding outstanding discovery requests, it was i
determined that since Intervenor was withdrawing Contention No.1 and Contention No. 8, a ruling by the Board was required only on Joint Applicants' August 28,~1981 Motion to Compel Intervenor to Answer Second Set of Interrogatories.
Such interrogatories relate to Contentions Nos. 6B and 7.
e v
-+.,
,w--
c.
.-m--.m.-,
,-p.---=
y
,,,--y y-q-.-
,y-
~ -
yyv.
m--%a e
,--+m g
g y
4 Intervenor was directed by the Board to file answers to Joint Applicants' second set of interrogatories by November 30, 1981.
III - Emergency Planning In a pleading filed on October 1,1981, Joint Applicants requested, among other things, this BoarA to adopt a proposal for the Intervenor's r eview of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) offsite emergency respo plan.
The proposal would afford the Intervenor the opportunity (1) to review the offsite emergency plan of the State of Arizona at the time it is initially submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and (2) to be heard on any element of those State plans that aggrieves the Intervenor by allowing her to file contenfions with the Board. S/
This procedure would allow the Intervenor an opportunity to 9 resent litigable issues to the Board on those plans and alert the organization who prepared the offsite emergency plan (Arizona Division of Emergency Services (ADES)) as well as the reviewer of the plan (FEMA) of her concerns prior to completion by FEMA of its final review of the plan. The proposaI is supported by the Staff and the Intervenor has not objected to it.
Accordingly, the Board issued its oral ruling providing that at the time that ADES makes its initial submission of the offsite plan to FEMA, a copy of the plan would be served on Intervenor.
The Intervenor would then have up to thirty (30) days in wh!ch to review the plan and submit contentions to the Board.3/
Joint Applicant's response,will be due one week after 2/ Intervenor's extended time to June 8,1981, to file contentions on Joint Applicants' onsite emergency plan expired over six months ago.
Intervenor is now foreclosed from litigating those issues.
- Thus, 3/
It was agreed among the Board and the parties that Joint Applicants would serve documents for the Intervenor expeditiously.
5 contenti.ons are filed.
Staff's response will be due one week after its receipt of Joint Applicants' response. Following discovery by the parties, the Intervenor's contentions would be litigated at the hearing.
The Board's decision respecting Intervenor's contentions could then be fonvarded to FEMA prior to the issuance by FEMA of its final finding on the offsite plan.
IV - Contention No. 8 One of the contentions advanced by the Intervenor and admitted by the Board as an issue in controversy is Contention No. 8 which reads as follows:
"The base mats for Units 1 and 2 are not structurally able to support the system and equipment inside containment, b5cause some of the concrete slump tests perfonned by Engineering Testing Labs for Units 1 and 2 were falsified."
During the prehearing conference, the Intervenor withdrew the contention on the ground that witnesses to the allegation would not testify because of possible jeopardy of their standing 'with their employers.
Because the Board considers the allegation set forth in Contention No. 8 to have a potentially significant safety impact on the construction of PVNGS, the Board indicated that it would ask Joint Applicants and the Staff to address the issue by affidavit.
(Tr.99-109). Questions propounded by the Board l
are set forth in a separate Memorandum and Order issued today pursuant to I
the Board's sua sponte authority.
V -
Schedule l
Based upon oral arguments by the parties at the prehearing conference
(
and the presently projected issuance dates for the offsite emergency plan, n--
- - -., - - - +,
a-,
-~,--,,,-n-w--,
-e-r
-e
6 i
the SSER and the FES, the, Board sets the following h earing schedule in this proceeding:
SER issued 11/30/81 ADES submits offsite emergency plan to FEMA Last day for filing new early December (est.)
contentions based on SER 12/30/81 SSER issued 12/31/81 Last day for filing contentions on offsite emergency plan 30 days after plan submitted by ADES Response by Joint Applicants to cricegency plan contentions I week after Response by Staff contentions filed to emergency plan contentions.
I week after filing of Last day for filing contentions Joint Applicants' response based on new information in SSER 1/18/82 Last day for filing Motions for Summary Disposition on emergency
(
plan contentions and Contentions Nos. 5, 68 and 7 f
2/1/82 FES issued 1
2/12/82 Last day for filing responses to Motions for Summary Disposition 2/22/82 Last day for filing contentions based on FES 2/26/82 I
,~
I l
7 Filing of written testimony on Contentions Nos. 5, 68 and 7 (and any other admitted contentions) 3/15/82 Start of hearing 3/30/82 IT IS SO ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD RArs<1 Robert M. Lazo, Chai'rnia ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Issued at Bethesda, Maryland ',
~
this lith day of December 1981 i
t s
_w-,
,-