Text

Motion to Vacate ASLB 820118 Order & for Extension of Time Until 820315 to Respond to Applicants 820111 Motion to Lift Suspension & Request for Prehearing Conference.Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML20040B133
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	01/21/1982
From:	Finamore B, Greenberg E; FINAMORE, B.A., National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, TUTTLE & TAYLOR
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	NUDOCS 8201250198
	Download: ML20040B133 (8)
	v • d • e

.

Before the ng~

D UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC nOARD

,82 JS! 21 PA:18 washington, D.C.

20545 In the Matter of

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

Docket No. 50-537

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

)

MOTION OF INTERVENORS NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.

AND THE SIERRA CLUB TO VACATE THE BOARD'S ORDER OF JANUARY 18 AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO LIFT SUSPENSION AND REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club ("Intervenors") submit this motion to vacate the January 18 order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the

" Board") setting a February 2, 1982 date for a prehearing conference.

Further, in accordance with 10 CFR S2.711(a),

Intervenors request an extension of time until March 15, 1982 to respond to Applicants' Motion (dated January ll, 1982) to Lift Suspension and Request for Prehearing Conference.

(1)

The Board's Order of January 18 Should be Vacated The Board's order of J anuary 18, although it recites that

"[n]o objections to [ Applicants'] motion have been received," was issued before expiration of the 10 day period for responses under the Commission's e ulations, 10 CFR 52.730(c).

Because Interven-ors were d d

-6..

ired opportunity to respond, the Board's e #

$er 1 s

s

.rs o

42 g

9gv3 c o.

e A?

g1250198820121 ADOCK 05000337 o

PDR

=-

i 1

I order was improperly issued and should be vacated.

At the very l.

least, it should be reconsidered in light of the reasons expressed below as to why an extension of time to respond to Applicants' i

Motion and Request is warranted.

j (2)

Intervenors' Response Time Should Be Extended Until j

March 15, 1982 1

J Because of Applicants' pending exemption request before a

the Commission and the complexity of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor ("CRBR") licensing itself, an extension of time to respond to Applicants' Motion and Request should be granted:

(a)

Applicants have pending before the Commission a i

request, pursuant to 10 CPR S50.12, for an exemption which would allow them to conduct site preparation activities without obtain-4 1

ing a Limited Work Authorization-1 ("LWA-1") as provided for in 10 CPR S50.10(e)(1)-(2).

Under procedures established by the Commis-I sion, a hearing will be held on this exemption request on February 15, 1982, with a Commission decision to follow on 1

j March 1,

and publication of the Order announcing the decision on March 8.

Intervenors believe that their response to Applicants' l

1 Motion and Request should be deferred until after the Commission's 1,

j decision under 10 CFR S50.12, because the disposition of the l

j exemption request will have an important bearing on the nature and scope of ensuing proceedings before the Board.

I l

i f

I l

4 Information submitted to and developed by the Commission o

during the course of the Section 50.12 proceeding will be relevant to any LWA hearing.

Not only will it be helpful in determining j

what further discovery is needed, but it may well provide a basis J

for accomplishing expeditiously the objectives of a prehearing

]

conference, including, inter alia, " obtaining of stipulations and admissions of fact," 10 CPR S2.752(a)(3), and identifying witnes-ses, 10 CFR S2.75 2(c) ( 4).

It would make little sense to go i

through the prehearing process twice in a short period -- once before and once after the Commission's Section 50.12 decision --

but this could well be the effect of the approach Applicants pro-l pose.

f In addition, the findings of the Commission after consi-deration of the Section 50.12 request will almost certainly illum-1 inate the issues before the Board in any LWA hearing.

Thus, they will further one of the prime purposes of a prehearing conference, namely, the " simplification, clarification and specification of j

the issues."

See 10 CPR S2.752(a) (1).

It seems reasonable to await the Commission's findings before undertaking the task of

" simplification, clarification and specification".

Indeed, any 4

i other approach is likely to result in wasted time and duplication 2

i i

i

I

_4_

i of effort. -1/

(b)

The licensing of the CRBR is an exceedingly complica-l l

ted enterprise under the best of circumstances.

In this case, moreover, almost five years have lapsed since suspension of the licensing hearings on April 25, 1977.

The five year suspension necessarily raises numerous issues at this point with respect to possible amendments of pleadings, identification of new information needs, updating of discovery requests, and the like. -2/

These changed circumstances combine to lead to'the conclusion that a substantial amount of time should be allowed to develop a response to Applicant's efforts to reopen the CRBR licensing and to prepare for any prehearing conference.

1/

Intervenors further note that at this time any prehearing conference would presumably be limited to developing a

format for an LWA-1 hearing.

If, however, the Commission were later to grant Applicants' exemption request, then it would seem necessary to hold a subsequent conference to consider whether changes should be made in that format.

-2/

The Commission's regulations contemplate that ordinarily prehearing conferences are held "within sixty (60) days after discovery has been completed."

10 CFR S 2. 752( a).

In this case, it seems obvious that further discovery will be required, and, therefore, a prehearing conference may be premature, i

4

a

. i i

WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully request that the Board's Order of January 18 be vacated and that their time to respond to Applicants' Motion to Lift Suspension and Request for a Prehearing Conference be extended until March 15, 1982.

Respectfully submitted, c/ L u Eldon V.

C.

Greenberg TUTTLE & TAYLOR 3

1901 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

200 6 t

(202) 861-0665 I

W

/&

hW J

Barbara A.

Finamore

/

S. Jacob Scherr Natural Resources Defense I

Council, Inc.

1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 223-8210 7

Attorneys for Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club i

Dated:

January 21, 1982 Washington, D.C.

]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Motion of Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club To Vacate the Board's Order of January 16 and for an Extension of Time to Respond to Applicants' Motion to Lift Suspens' ion and Request for Prehearing Conference were delivered by hand this 21st day of January, 1982, to the following:

Marshall E.

Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.