ML20046B953
| ML20046B953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1993 |
| From: | Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#393-14147 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9308090059 | |
| Download: ML20046B953 (7) | |
Text
_-
/4/47 hhb July 22, 1993
'93 JUL 27 Ali :17 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W-
'M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[,;
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA~7 Pncific Gas and Electric Company
)
50-323-OLA
)
(Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Recovery)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S MOTION TO REOUIRE CROSS-EXAMINATION PLANS I.
INTRODUCTION On July 8,
- 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board")
issued
" Memorandum and Order (Notice of Prehearing Conference and Evidentiary Hearing)" (" Notice"). As the heading suggests, this Notice sets a schedule for the evidentiary hearing in this matter and for a prehearing conference immediately l
preceding the hearing.
The prehearing conference is intended, according to the Licensing Board, to consider such matters as stipulations as to the genuineness and authenticity of documents and to any particular matters of fact upon which the parties may
- agree, the potential need or desirability of cross-examination plans (as provided by 10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 3 (b) (2) ),
steps to expedite the presentation of
- evidence, and such other matters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding.
l l
9308090059 930722 PDR ADOCK 05000275 i
p5Cg g
\\
)
- ^
~
Notice at 2.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") herein responds to the issue of the "need or desirability of cross-examination plans," and moves that the Licensing Board recuire cross-examination plans in advance of the evidentiary hearing in order to aid the orderly progress of the proceeding.
PG&E also proposes a conference call to discuss other prehearing matters during the week of August 9, 1993.
II.
DISCTJSSION As referenced by the Licensing Board, cross-examination plans are provided for in 10 C.F.R. S 2.743 (b) (2).
The intent of the Commission was clear in promulgating section 2.743(b) (2) in 1989:
The Commission believes that cross-examination plans can have a very beneficial impact on the conduct of a hearing by encouraging parties to develop and evaluate the objectives they expect their cross-examination to achieve and by giving the presiding officer the necessary information to effectively manage the proceeding.
The Commission disagrees with those commenters who believe that the use of cross-examination plans will sacrifice the quality or openness of its decisionmaking for the sake of efficiency.
Cross-examination plans have been used effectively in a number of Commission proceedings.
We do not believe it is unduly burdensome to require a party to a proceeding to examine prefiled testimony sufficiently to be able to articulate to the presiding officer the nature of the questions the party believes are necessary to illuminate the issues of concern to it.
i 54 Fed. Reg. 33, 168 at 33, 175, col. 3 (1989).
Under the circumstances of the present case, PG&E concurs with the Commission, as well as with the commenters who supported the adoption of section 2.743 (b) (2)' referenced by the Commission in !
s t
1
f the statement of considerations.
According to the Commission, commenters stated that cross-examination plans "would encourage cross-examining parties to think out their case in advance and f
would lead to better questions and a shortec ; roceeding."
Id. at 33, 174, col.
3.
This is particularly true in the preser.t case.
j Although there may be no urgency involved in the completion of the present proceeding, all parties and the Licensing Board have an interest in an efficient, orderly evidentiary hearing.
Contention I in particular is a broad, unfocused challenge to the Diablo i
i Canyon maintenance and surveillance programs.
The intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace are not represented by counsel and have suggested that they will rely on literally hundreds of 1
documents.1/
If there was ever a need to require an orderly, focused, and meaningful cross-examination plan, this is the case.
Moreover, with cross-examination plans, PG&E expects that the Licensing Board would be able to monitor the cross-examination as l
I it unfolds and take steps to avoid needless disputes among the h
parties related to unduly
- long, repetitive, inefficient, or pointless cross-examination.
1 PG&E makes this Motion now because the decision on cross-examination plans logically cannot await a prehearing conference to be held moments before the beginning of the evidentiary hearing.
i All parties are entitled to time to prepare their plan following i
1/
See " San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Supplemental Response to First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for i
Production of Documents Filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company," dated June 21, 1993, at Attachment A.
j l,
h 1
receipt of the direct testimony.
Accordingly, the cross-examination plans could and should be filed one week prior to the prehearing conference to permit the Licensing Board adequate time to plan for the orderly conduct of the hearing.
In addition, with respect to the other preliminary matters listed by the Licensing Board in its Notice for discussion at the prehearing conference, PG&E proposes a conference call during the i
week of August 9, 1993.
Prior to that call the parties can seek to reach stipulations on such matters as authenticity of documents.
t III.
CONCLUSION PG&E respectfully requests that the Licensing Board require cross-examination plans from all parties that intend to conduct I
cross-examination.
These plans should be submitted one week prior to the beginning of the evidentiary hearing (i.e.,
on August 10, 1993).
PG&E also proposes a conference call with the Licensing
///
///
///
i
///
i i
i r
///
i i ~~'
~
~
^
l Board and parties during the week of August 9, 1993, to address other preliminary matters.
Respectfully submitted, Ab i
DEVid A. Repka
\\
WINSTON & STRAMN 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 (202) 371-5726 Christopher J. Warner Richard F. Locke PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company t
Dated in San Francisco, CA this 22nd day of July, 1993
af M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'93 JUL 27 A11 :17 l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J'c
., i;.
If In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OIY "
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
50-323-OLA
)
(Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Power
)
Recapture)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S "
MOTION TO REQUIRE CROSS-EXAMINATION PLANS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 22nd day of July, 1993.
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jerry R.
Kline Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555 Section (original + two copies)
Adjudicatory File Peter Arth, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward W.
O'Neill Board Panel Peter G.
Fairchild U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission California Public Utilities Washington, DC 20555 Commission i
505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 l
l l
Nancy Culver, President Truman Burns Board of Directors California Public Utilities San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Commission P.O.
Box 164 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4103 Pismo Beach, CA 93448 San Francisco, CA 94102 Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
David A. Repka Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Winston & Strawn Committee 1400 L Street, N.W.
857 Cass Street, Suite D Washington, D.C.
20005 Monterey, CA 93940 Jill ZamEk Robert Kinosian 1123 Flora Road California Public Utilities Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Commission 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mr. Gregory Minor MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Ave., Suite K San Jose, CA 95125 David A.
Repka
\\
Counsel for Pacific Gas &
Electric Company 1
9