ML20039B516
| ML20039B516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Cole R, Mccollom K, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112230178 | |
| Download: ML20039B516 (5) | |
Text
I fo b
r 2UE TED UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA
~ C NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0"J11SSION
(A{ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN
's v.
77 Before Administrative Judges:
s i'>7 n
D, EC2 flarshall E. Miller, Chairman i& T W '
y te:a.._lO I30in~[B Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
?
g?mrS'""a -
t, Dr. Richard F. Cole kg
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 In the Matter of
)
50-445
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
(Application for Operation License)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
December 18, 1981
)
ORDER SUBSEQUENT TO PREHEARING CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 On September 17, 1981, this Board issued an order giving notice of a prehearing conference. This prehearing conference was held on i
December 1, 1981. At that time all parties were present and were given an opportunity to address all outstanding motions and to raise matters preliminary to an evidentiary hearing to begin the following day on Contentions 9 and 25 and Board Question 2.II Motions Concerning Contention 9 At the time of the hearing, there was pending a motion by the Appli-cants for summary disposition of Contention 9.
However, the Board also had before it a filing titled " Stipulation" and dated November 20, 1981 indicating the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUPs), the sponsor 1/ e State of Texas, although participating as an interested State, was Th not present at the conference. The State had received notice of the gol conference.
s ei12230178 M h 5 PDR ADOCK PDR ID G
a
. of Contention 9, was ir mtarily withdrawing that contention. The Board, having ascertained that the Staff had no objection to dismissal of l
Contention 9, dismissed that contention (Tr. 21). The Board indicated l
l that it was not involving itself in agreements between the partin, j
although they would be expected to honor agreements among themselves (Tr. 24).
In light of the withdrawal of Contention 9, the motion for its summary dismissal is dismissed as moot.
Motions Concerning Contention 25 A number of motions were directed to Contention 25, concerning the financial qualification of the Applicants to operate the plant. Three motions by CASE addressed procedural problems. One was essentially a l
request that the Applicants admit the authenticity of several documents
{
attached to the motion.
In this order, the Board approves an agreement among the parties whereby the authenticity of documents supported by affidavits of the keepers of the official records is admitted. These documents are identified as Attachments B, C, D, F and G to CASE's Answer to NRC Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.
As to the other documents (Attachments E and H-M) in question, CASE will provide affidavits attesting to their authenticity from the keepers of the public record by December 19, 1981 (Tr. 228-31). The Applicant reserves the right to challenge the authenticity of Attachment H, memoran-dum from George Schrader, Dallas City Manager, to Mayor and Members of Dallas City Council, after the affidavits are supplied.
In addition, the
. rights of both the Applicants and the Staff to challenge the relevance of the documents, and to offer the balance of documents partially entered into evidence, are preserved and may be raised when the material is offered as evidence.
In addition, CASE made a motion to admit testimony on affidavit only.
Insofar as that motion is directed to authentication by affidavit of the material sought to be admitted, the agreement among the parties applies.
Insofar as it may seek a ruling on the admissibility of the material, the Board denies the motion. A decision on the admissibility of each document is not appropriate until the evidentiary hearing when the Board could determine its relevancy in the context in which the document was offered into evidence (Tr. 231-34).
CASE by motion also sought to have the Board issue subpoenas and call as Board witnesses certain individuals CASE believed would supply informa-tion on financial qualifications. Although the Board has the inherent power to call its own witnesses and pay reasonable witness fees and expenses, that authority is reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
The Board finds that no showing of extraordinary circumstances has been made in the present case. The motion is therefore denied (Tr. 231).
Applicants made a motion for summary disposition of Contention 25.
The motion is denied (Tr. 235). The Board is unable to agree with the Applicants and Staff that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Applicant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
. (See 10 CFR 52.749(d)). The matter, therefore, will be addressed at the evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, the cost of decommission-ing will be included as a cost for which financial qualification must be shown.
In addition, CFUR will be allowed to cross-examine witnesses on this contention (Tr. 236).
Other Matters In response to a motion from CASE, the Board is severing the consoli-dation of CASE and CFUR for purposes of discovery and cross-examination on Contention 5 (Tr. 101). CASE and CFUR are directed to confer in advance of filing interrogatories on Contention 5 to assure that their requests for discovery do not overlap or duplicate each other.
As concerns discovery on Contention 5, the Applicants and the Staff may each pursue discovery on both CASE and CFUR (Tr. 105). Both CASE and CFUR must answer separately, although they are free to consider the other's response in giving their answers.
If the Applicants and the Staff address identical questions to CFUR or CASE, complete answers must nevertheless be provided to both the Applicants and the Staff.
The Board also directs the parties to provide each other with basic information to aid in discovery (Tr. 259). This includes such information as identification of significant documents in their possession and of knowledgeable witnesses.
Because there appears to be some disagreement
. between CASE and the Staff as to whether CASE has answered all outstand-ing interrogatories, these parties are directed to meet directly and confer regarding their problems (Tr. 263).
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
Dr. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTPATIVE JUDGE Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom ADMINISTFATIVE JUDGE
[-
9, Marshall E. Miller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of December, 1981.
i l
,