ML20053B201
| ML20053B201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1982 |
| From: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205280166 | |
| Download: ML20053B201 (3) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.g~;
- p. ;g p 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES James L. Kelley, Chairman 529VED MAY %61982 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Richard F. Foster
)
In the Matter of
-)
Docket Nos. 50-413
)
50-414 DUKE POWER COMPANY, E_T__A_L_.
)
)
(Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
May 25, 1982
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Applicants have filed a " Renewed Motion for Certification,"
dated April 26,19d2, asking us to certify several issues to the Appeal Board at this time, without first ruling on their pending motion for reconsideration. They also request suspension of the discovery process, pending resolution of the issues they want certified. The NRC Staff has i
filed a response dated May 7,1982 opposing certification at this time "unless the Board is now convinced that it will not reverse itself." The Staff also supports suspension of discovery, but only on a small group of contentions. The Intervenors have not responded to the Applicants' motion.
The normal practice on a motion for reconsideration or certiilcation is for the Licensing Board to rule first on the movant's claim of error.
D So]
s 820 5 28 0 f ro(o. 4 of,
r b Under that approach, the Board might reverse or modify its prior rulings; if not, the Board has an opportunity to state its views on any new arguments the movant may have advanced.
In the latter regard, it is expected that the movant will have new arguments to make or new information to provide; the motion for reconsideration is not intended to be just another opportunity to rehash arguments the Board has already rejected.
In the present case, we have received extensive motions for reconsideration from the Applicants, two intervenors, and the Staff.
We think we should first consider these submissions, in the absence of a strong reason for certification now.
The only reason the Applicants assign for certification now is their view of a need for dtimely resolution" of the rulings they seek to contest.
There may have been some basis for that view on the construction and scheduling assumptions we discussed at the prehearing conference in January.
However, it how appears that the Applicants' construction schedule for Catawba is slipping significantly.
This is indicated by the letter from an official of the Duke Power
- Company to the Director of l
Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated March 26, 1982, a copy of which is attached to the Staff's respose.
In response to these construction delays and also to delays in the Appliccats' responses to certain Staff questions, the Staff now proposes to extend several of its deadlines. Most significantly from a hearing commencemei ' standpoint, the Safety Evaluation Report is slipping a full six months, from August 1982 until February 1983.
This means that the start of hearing in this case must also slip at least several months. And that in turn means that the Applicants' concerns about l
timely resolution of the issues are not warranted at this t'ime.
3-The Applicants' renewed motion for certification is denied.
The Applicants' and Staff's requests for a stay of discovery are granted on all admitted contentions for which certification is being sought, pending our ruling on pending motions for certification and related matters.
This means that discovery is stayed with respect to the following contentions:
Palmetto 1-4, 6, 7,10,18, 22, 23, 25 and 26; CMEC 4; CESG 8, 9,13,16 and 17. We will reconsider the stay of discovery question at that time.
In accordance with telephone conversations between the Board Chairman and counsel for the Applicants and the Staff, those counsel are granted until June 11, 1982 to file, responses to the Palmetto response and motion dated May 10, 1982.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
L)/
Jpp L. Kelley, Chairma A M NISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 25th day of May, 1982.
_,-6,.-..-______
~,
n.
-