ML20053A741
| ML20053A741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1982 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205270230 | |
| Download: ML20053A741 (4) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P....,Li Z:
'[.
Lif a ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administratife Judges:
+
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon OsD. IASY 2 l982 D
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-155 (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant)
May 24, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Procedural Rulings Made in Untranscribed Telephone Conference)
This morning, a telephone conference was held in which Christa-Maria, et. al. (Christa-Maria), Consumers Power Company (applicant) and the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (staff) were represented.
This memor-andum sets forth the reasons for orders issued by the Boerd in the course of that conference. The orders relate to whether the Board should require: (1) the deferral of a staff technical meeting on seismic issues, (2) the defer-ral of depositions of staff technical witnesses on seismic matters, and (3) that subpoenas issued to county emergency planning officials should be quashed because admission of testimony from these witnesses, without a show-ing of good cause for late filing, would subvert the deadline estaolished by the Board for the filing of direct testimony.
I TECHNICAL MEETING BETWEEN STAFF AND APPLICANT Tomorrow morning, the applicant and staff are planning a technical meeting to discuss site specific spectra for the seismic qualification of the Big Rock Point Plant. The meeting is relevant to a general staff review affecting Big Rock Point; it also is relevant to the seismic qualification of the containment crane, an issue admitted in this proceeding.
Christa-t3302 0
820527
Procedural Rulings:
2 Maria argued that the need for it to attend this meeting would complicate its prehearing preparation and might contribute to its need to seek a postponement.
Consequently, the Board explored the possibility of either delaying the technical meeting or requiring that it be taped or transcribed.
Staff stated that such meetings are open to the public and are not subject to a prohibition against taping or transcripition; it stated, however, that taping might inhibit free discussion and that taping the entire meeting might not be possible if it became necessary to subdivide into working groups.
Applicant offered to have the meeting transcribed, either by tape or by a court reporter and to make the transcript available to the intervenor.
Staff stated that a postponement of the technical meeting might delay the Big Rock seismic review of the containment crane and might also delay the more general seismic review.
Applicant preferred taping the hearing to a delay.
Christa-Mari a accepted taping as an alternative to delaying the technical meeting.
The Board stated that it is concerned about the technical meeting be-l cause it may complicate Christa-Maria's prehearing preparation unduly.
How-ever, balancing this interest against the need for timely completion of the seismic review, the Board accepted applicant's offer to transcribe the pro-ceeding, leaving it to discussions between Christa-Maria and applicant to determine whether transcription should be by tape or through a court reporter. The Board ruled that staff must either accept the presence of the reporter or must postpone the technical meeting until af ter the completion of the Big Rock proceeding, June 7 through June 15.
Further, the Board cautioned the staff to conduct the conference in good faith and not to break up into small working meetings for the purpose of avoiding transcription.
The Board stated that if the intervenors wished to ha/e another person attend, as well, that the other person also could operate a tape recorder.
II DEFERRAL OF DEPOSITIONS OF STAFF SEISMIC EXPERTS Applicant has requested the opportunity to depose certain staff seis-
e O
Procedural Rulings:
3 mic experts concerning site-specific spectra.
Staff will accede to some of these requests, but not al l.
Christa-Maria objects to all depositions of staff experts prior to the filing of the staff's conclusions on site-speci-fic spectra, primadly on the ground that the depositions will be used primarily to influence the staff decision process rather than for obtaining information.
C'1rista-Maria also objects that the need to attend depositions would delay its preparation for hearing.
A)plicant agreed to refile its requests for depositions and to re-quest that they be conducted af ter June 15.
It was understood that this arrangement would not waive possible objections to the depositions raised either by staff or by Christa-Maria.
III MOTION TO QUASH SUBP0ENAS Christa-Maria has obtained two subpoenas for the purpose of compel-ling the attendance of two county emergency planning directors at the hear--
ing.
Applicant and staff objected that these subpoenas circumvent the Board's order for the filing of direct testimony prior to the hearing.
Christa-Maria argued that it could not have afforded to depose these witnes-ses in order to obtain their direct testimony.
m.
The Board stated that Christa-Maria could have obtained subpoenas for the purpose of taking depositions and it might even have obtained an order requiring that named witnesses respond to written interrogatories, in' place of appearing at a deposition.
Consequently, the Board believes that Christa-Maria did not meet its obligation to file direct testimony on time, as it could have done.
4 The Board also inquired about the scope of the direct testimony flied on this issue by applicant and staff.
It determined that direct testimony has been filed on each of the subcontentions admitted to hearing.
Theri the Board ruled that the Christa-Maria witnesses could be admitted at the' hear-ing, solely for the purpose of providing rebuttal testimony.
Hence, the motion to quash would not be granted.
f~ '
Procedural Rulings:
4 0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 24th day of May 1982, ORDERED (1) The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission either shall permit applicant to transcribe the technical meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning with Consumers Power Inc. or shall postpone the meeting until af ter June 15, 1982.
(2)
Depositions of staff seismic witnesses shall not be conducted until after June 15, 1982.
(3) The testimony of the emergency planning witnesses subpoenaed by Christa-Maria, et al., shall be permitted only for the purpose of rebuttal.
The subpoenas issued to these witnesses shall not be quashed.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 11, Peter B. ~Bloch, Chairman ~,
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
Bethesda, Maryland s
(
'w pes g
l
~
~
4 k
-..