ML20040D764

Answer Opposing Applicants' 820120 Motion for Deferral of Discovery of Financial Qualifications.Intervenor Will Be Prejudiced Because Time Will Not Be Available to Conduct Discovery Adequately.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20040D764
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	01/26/1982
From:	Simpson J KANSANS FOR SENSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8202020231
Download: ML20040D764 (6)

Text

.

o * .

totKr.iED

. UW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlQN FB -1 M1 :26 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) _

) 9 -

KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) . Docket No. 50-et. al. ) $<

x

) g RECEtyyp ' T;\ '

(Wolf Creek Gr:nerating Station, ) 2 FES2 Unit No.1) ) rn

\0 c,,,&&a%198 "z

rre fa ANSWER OF KANSANS FOR SENSIBLE ENERGY TO APPLICANTS'A s MOTION FOR DEFERRAL OF DISCOVERY ON FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS ')

$lT h The Intervenor, Kansans for Sensible Energy (hereaf ter referred to as KASE),

asks that the Licensing Board deny the Applicants' Motion for Deferral of Discovery on Financial Qualifications. The said motion is dated January 20,1982. Additionally, KASE requests that the Board rule on this motion i'mmediately so KASE can continue with the discovery process. In support of its contention that the motion should be denied, K ASE states as follows:

1. (a) The intervention by KASE will be prejudiced if the motion is granted because it may not have time to adequately conduct discovery before the operating license hearings. There is no indication when the Commission will act on the proposed rule (referred to in the appil-cant's motion) and any staff recommendations about the proposal.

It may be within a fe,w days or it may be delayed several months.

If the Commission fails to adopt the rule or adopts Alternative 2, KASE will be prejudiced because it will be forced to prepare for the operating license hearing without having had the benefit of discovery during the period of deferral. (

8202020231 820126 PDR ADOCK 05000482 l

l 0 PDR

i

, s -

(b) Alternative 2 set forth in the proposed r'ule would still require the electric utility to demonstrate that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of permanently shutting down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition. The applicant would still be required to submit estimates of these costs and also indicate sources of funds to be used to cover these costs. (See 46 Fed. Reg. 41790) The contention of KASE is set forth in the Special Prehearing Conference Order, dated June 3,1981, as follows: "Due to increased and underestimated costs, the applicant does not have the financial ability to either operate or decommission the Wolf Creek facility." Therefore, the financialinformation sought by KASE from the applicants will continue to be relevant if Alternative 2 is adopted.

(c) There are three possible decisions the Commission can make about the proposed rule:

(1) It can adopt Alternative 1; (2) It can adopt Alternative 2; or (3) It can reject both alternatives.

Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the Commission's decision will not make KASE's discovery requests irrelevant. Two-thirds of the Commission's possible decisions will allow further discovery to be done.

2

. , t ,

o ., (

. 2. h) mid November 1981 the applicants contacted the undersigned and discussed a deferral of the discovery process relating to financial.

qualifications. The counsel for the applicants indicated that such a deferral would be desirable because of the fact that the pending rule change, if adopted, might inake financial qualifications discovery unnecessary. During these discussions, the undersigned mentioned the problem of not being able to conduct discovery during the deferral period and possibly still having to be ready for the operating license hearing in the fall of 1982. Because the attorneys for the parties were -

4

~

not able to agree upon a deferral of the operating license hearing if discovery was deferred, the undersigned told the attorney for the applicants on November 30, 1981, that KASE desired to proceed with discovery. As a result of that decision and at least implicit agreement thereto by applicants' attorney, the undersigned arranged his work schedule for December and January to deal with the financial qualifications discovery process during those months.

The attorneys for the applicants did not indicate that they would i

seek a deferral of the discovery process until they raised the issue with the undersigned by a telephone call on January 20,1982.

Because the undersigned has proceeded on the assumption that discovery would be conducted during December and January, his February schedule would need to be substantially altered if discovery is to be conducted then. This would be difficult, inconvenient, and prejudicial to KASE.

3

.- .. . . . _ ~ . , , - - , .

e 1

3. -

The applicants stat'e in their motion that a decision about the

proposed tule is imrninent. Other than this statement by the applicants, the unddrsigned does not have any evidence about when the Commission might make a decision on the proposal. As was noted above, it may be in the very near future or it may be deferred for some period of time.

4. The applicants state that the effort required to collect and organize the documents asked for by KASE would cause wasted effort on the part of the applicants. When the attorneys for the applicants and KASE agreed in December 1981 upon the discovery process to be followed, the applicants' attorneys were obviously aware that the Commission could rule on the proposal at any time. If they were concerned about wasted effort on the part of the applicants, the issue should have been raised at that time and not on January 20,1982, after the process was well underway. The inconvenience and possible prejudice to KASE if the motion is granted outweighs the inconvenience to the applicants' personnel.

Respectfully submitted, w )bs . 8 ~w ohn M. Simpson, Attbrney f or Kansans for Sensible Energy 4400 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 Telephone: (913) 384-9144 l

Dated

January 2 4 ,1982.

l l

l 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) Docket No. 50-432 et. al. )

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, )

Unit No.1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Answer of Kansans for Sensible Energy to Applicants' Motion for Deferral of Discovery on Financial Qualifications in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, on January ,1982.

James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive , Board Panel Silver Spring, MD 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa.;hington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George C. Anderson .

Department of Oceanography Docketing and Service Section University of Washington Office of the Secretary Seattle, Washington 98195 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, D. C. 20555 Dr. 3. Venn Leeds 10807 Atwell Eric A. Eisen, Esq.

Houston, Texas 77096 Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Treva 3. Hearne, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20036 Assistant General Counsel P. O. Box 360 Kansans for Sensible Energy Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 P. O. Box 3192 Jay Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman,Potts & Trowbridge Mary Ellen Salava 1800 M Street, N.W. Route 1, Box 56 Washington, D.C. 20006 Burlington, Kansas 66839

4

~ - -

Wanda Christy Myron Karman 515 N. Ist Street Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Burlington, Kansas 66839 Office of the Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C. Edward Peterson, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant General Counsel Kansas Corporation Commission State Office Bldg.

Topeka, KS 66612 k }M , / Y ... w w 3efin M. Simpson ~ '

[

.-w.-._- - _ - - . - - - . . - _ _ _ _ ~ ,