ML20041G438
| ML20041G438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1982 |
| From: | Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203220300 | |
| Download: ML20041G438 (3) | |
Text
l
- 7I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 mg 17 TJ0:22 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES
- ~
Glenn 0. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman g
In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Decket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER
)
50-401 OL AGENCY N0. 3
)
e g
)
D (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
)
-Units 1 and 2)
)
March 16, 1982
/-~'
)
t RECEfVED-9 MAR 1 ORDER s
+
fo
~~
The Board has received " Applicants' Motion for the Establishment o a Schedule Leading to a Special Prehearing Conference," asking us to schedule a special prehearing conference pursuant to 10 CFR 2.751a. The primary purpose of the conference would be to consider and possibly rule on petitions for intervention and the Petitioners' various contentions, and to discuss various procedural and scheduling matters. The Applicants propose May 18, 1982 as a conference date, coupled with a requirement that contentions be filed 30 days prior to the conference. The Applicants suggest the 30 day interval (longer than the 15 days normally contemplated by the rule) in order to provide sufficient time for the Petitioners, the Applicants and the NRC Staff to meet together informally to discuss party
~
status, contentions, and other matters.
b l
8203220300 820316 PDR ADOCK 05000400 G
,- The Applicants' motion has been served on each of the nine petitioners for intervention.
Although the Petitioners have not yet been admitted as parties, the Board asks each Petitioner to respond to this motion.
You are particularly invited to respond to the dates suggested in the motion and to the concept of informal preconference discussion of cortentions and other matters. The Board strongly endorses that concept. Our experience has shown that active participation by petitioners, Applicants and the NRC Staff in that informal process can simplify and expedite the proceeding.
We have received from Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort
(" CHANGE") a motion asking for a Final Safety Analysis Report and Envircnmental Report to facilitate its preparation of contentions.
CHANGE also asks for a minimum of 30 days following receipt of those documents in which to prepare contentions.
The expense of serving these massive documents on all of the petitioners for intervention, and keeping them current, is not required by the Commission's rules and is not otherwise warranted. Moreover, it is not entirely clear whether a petitioner for intervention like CHANGE has the authority to make a motion.
See 10 CFR 2.715(c).
Without pausing long over that question, however, we are taking action on our own initiative
- which substantially meets CHANGE's request.
First, we are establishing a second Public Document Room in the Public Because we are acting on our own motion, we need not address the response of the Applicants to the CHANGE motion.
Suffice it to say that we disagree completely with the Applicants' argument that CHANGE does not really need access to the FSAR and ER in formulating contentions.
On the contrary, such access is essential to enable petitioners for intervention to meet the requirement that they set forth "the bases of each contention... with reasonable specificity." 10 CFR 2.714(b).
For a recent application of that requirement to a range of contentions, see Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station), Order of March 5,1982.
r
-a-1 Library in Chapel Hill North Carolina.
(One Public Document Room is already located in the Wake County Public Library in Raleigh, North Carolina.)
Second, when we set the date for the conference, we will allow at least 30 days for preparation of contentions. We would be happy to have suggestions as to further steps we might take to facilitate participation in this proceeding.
~
The Applicants' proposal of May 18, 1982 as a prehearing conference date is not feasible for the Board.
We doubt whether any earlier dai.e would be practical, considering the present posture of the proceeding.
The
-Board favors a prehearing conference in early-to-mid-June.
Specifically, we are available for June 8, 9 and, if necessary,10.
Responses to the Applicants' motion, including the Staff's rasponse, shall be served (mailed) by March 26, 1982.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W [0, b y
Glenn 0. Bright
~g ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE law pf. James H. Cartenter RDMINISTRATIVE JUDGE k d.ma l
esL.Kelley,Chfirman MINISTRATIVE JUDGE
~
Dated in Bethesda, Maryland, this 16th day of March, 1982.
__