ML20053F021

Summarizes 820601 Telcon Re Scheduling Matters.Ltr to Serve as Minutes of Telcon.Schedule of Proceeding Adopted as List

ML20053F021
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/07/1982
From:	Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8206100314
Download: ML20053F021 (7)

Text

_

SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & T,ROWBRIDGE~^ " # '

A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPC8IETIONS 1800 M ST A EET, N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 em 49 RAMSAY D. POTTS. P C. THOM AS A. SAKTER. P C. JOHNM C hCILL.9JR. N ,, O, f.pCiviO LAWRENCE MILLER C'EUART L PsTTM AN. P C. JAMES M SURGER. P C. ggggg ggg..ogo J AY A. EPSTIEN ANNE M MRAUSMOFF QEORGE F. TROwSmoot. P C. SMELDON J. WEISEL P C. RAND L ALLEN FREDERICM L MLEIN ETEY4*EN Q POTTS. P C. JOHN A. MCCULLOUGM. P C. - TIMOTMY S. McBReOE GOROON R. MANOFSMY GE RALO CHANNCFF. P C. J. PATRsCR HeCM EY. P C. ELISASCTM M. PENOLETON * - JEFFREY S. OiANCOLA PMILLap D SOSTWICM. P C. GEOROC D MICH AELY. JR. P C. TELEcopiER PAUL A. MAPLAN - M ANNAM E. M. LIESERM AN R. TIMOTHY M ANLON. P C. J. THOM AS LENHART, P C. gggp gg ggg gg M ARRY M. OLAS$8'EGEL s SANDRA E. FOLSOM GEO8eOE M ROGERS. JR . P C. STEVEN L MELT 2ER. PC. TMOM AS M. McCORMICM MARCIA R. NIRENSTEIN FRED A. LITTLE. P C. DEAN O. AULacM. P C. - WILLAM P SAAR JUOaTM A. SANDLER JOHN 3. RMINELANDER. P C. JOHN ENCEL P C. SUSAN M FREUNO EQWARO O. YOUNO. Itt DEUCE W. CHURCMILL P C. CHARLES S TEMMIN. P C. TELEX JOMN L. CARA. JR. ROSCRT L WILLMORE L ELLIE A. NaCMOLSON JR . P C. STEPteEN 3. MUTTLER. P C. PMILIP J. MAAVEY WENOCLsN A. WHITE MARTIN O FRALL P C. WlmeTMROP N. SROWN. P C. OO'IOOI II'*A*bA* WINI ROSERT M. OCROON STAN(EY M. SARO RICHARO J. M C'eOALL. P C. JAMES S. MAMLIN. P C. cAggg "gugw(Aw.. SARG ARA J. MORGEN MRIS9 L LIMSO J AY E - 58LSERO. P C. RANDAL 3. MELL P C. SONNIE S. GOTTLIES LESkit M. SMITM CAMAR A M ROSSOTTL P C. POSERT E. ZAMLER - MOWARD M. SMAFF ERMAN VIRGINIA S. RUTLEDGE O CORGE V. ALLEN, JR . P C. RICHAPO C. GALEN DESCRAM S SAJSER MATHERINE P. CMEEM F E E D ORASN E R. P C. ROBERT S. ROSSINS WRITER'S DeRECT DIAL NUMBER SCOTT A. ANENBERO JANICE LEMRER-STEIN R MENLY WE SSTER. P C. STEVEN M LUCAS CAMPBf .L MILLEFER TRAviS 7. BROWN. JR.

NATMANIEL P SRE CO. JR., P C. DAviQ M. RL SENSTEIN SETH M. MOOGASIAN GAsk E. CURREY M AKM AUQENSLICM S C. LYNN WMgTT(ESEY WILSON SMEILA MCC. MARVEY Rf CM ARO M. MRONTMAL CKN E ST L. SLAM C. J R., P C. MATIAS F. TRAviESO-OsAZ DELISSA A. RIDOWAY STEPMEN 3. MEIMANN CAKLETON S JONES. P C. VICTORIA J. PERMINS MENNETH J. MAUTM AN l

J,une 7, 1982 Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA and 50-301-OLA

Dear Judge Bloch:

This letter will serve as minutes of the conference call held in the above referenced proceeding on June 1, 1982, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. EDST.

Licensee requested the conference call to discuss scheduling of the proceeding. The NRC Staff also requested an opportunity to respond orally to Decade's May 20, 1982 letter to the Board concerning discovery of the Staff. A conference call was arranged with the Staff, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. (" Decade"), and Licensee represented. Initially, all parties waived the right to have a reporter present during the conference call and waived the right to question the proprietary of the Board's action in convening a conference 8206100314 820607 PDR ADOCK 05000266 G PDR

.SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORAf1ONS Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

June 7, 1982 Page 2

call without a reporter. Counsel for L'aensee was directed to take minutes of the conference call.

Counsel for Licensee stated the nature of his concerns about the scheduling of the proceeding. During the January 11, 1982 conference call, the Board had established a schedule in which the due dates for numerous filings ran from the issuance of the Staff's SER (then projected for late l February). Assuming issuance of the SER in late February, the January 11 schedule would have resulted in a timely decision on full-scale sleeving (to be performed during the Unit 2 refuel-

, ing outage beginning March 25, 1983).

However, the date of issuance of the SER has been revised several times, and is now projected for June 30, 1982.

Given a June 30, 1982 SER issuance, the January 11 schedule might not enable a timely decision on full-scale sleeving.

Accordingly, counsel for Licensee proposed the followimg.

schedule for the major events remaining in the proceeding, severing those events from the issuance of the SER:

Decade's Motion Concerning Litigable Issues 7/19/82 Licensee's Response to Decade's Motion 8/9/82 Staff's Response to Decade's Motion 8/16/82 Decade's Reply to Responses of Licensee and Staff 8/31/82 Telephone Conference on Decade Motion 9/8/82 Possible Board Decision on Li* e:(bla Issues 9/22/82 Prefiled Testimony of Al. ist F. 1 10/12/82 Hearing Begins 10/25/82 Assuming a hearing of approximately two weeks, approximately two months for the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and one month thereafter for the isguance of an initial decision, Licensee's proposed schedule would lead to an initial decision in early February 1983. -

'.SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PAMINERSMlp OF PeortsasoNAL CORPORAnONS Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

June 7, 1982 Page 3 Counsel for Licensee observed that the SER was considered in the NRC's rules to be in the nature of Staff testimony, and that the rules did not accord discovery on the SER as a matter of right. However, since the Board's January 11 schedule had included time to conduct such discovery, if any,oon new information contained in the SER/EIA, counsel for Licensee further proposed the following collateral schedule to accommodate such discovery:

Issuance of the SER/EIA 6/30/82 Decade's Discovery Requests (if any) on New Information in the SER/EIA 7/12/82 Responses to Decade's Discovery Ret a9ts on the SER/EIA 7/27/82 Decade'r. Amendment, if any, to its Metion Concerning Litigable Issues fased on New Information in the SER/EIA 8/3/82 Responses of Staff and Licensee to Motion Amendment 8/17/82 Decade's Reply to Responses of Staff and Licensee 8/31/82 Under the proposed schedule, Decade would " flag" possible issues for litigation raised by the SER/EIA, if any, in its iniuial Motion Concerning Litigable Issues. In addition, service of documents would generally be by Express Mail; Licensee would also endeavor to facilitate expedited hand service of documents among the parties. (In a subsequent telephone conversation, Decade and Licensee agreed to consult l

with respect to arrangements for service of Decade's docu-i ments.) Counsel for Licensee observed that the proposed schedule represented a savings of at least one month over the January 11 schedule.

Counsel for the Staff supported Licensee's proposed schedule and stated that other events, such as the possible need for follow-up discovery on SER discovery, might render Licensee's proposed schedule up to two months shorter than the schedule set during the January conference call. Counsel for the Staff affirmed that the Staff indeed anticipates issuance ,

4 I

.SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMep OF pmOFESeaONAL CORPORATIONS Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

June 7, 1982 Page 4 of the SER/EIA by June 30, 1982, and does not expect the SER to differ substantially from either the San Onofre SER or the SER on the sleeving demonstration program at Point Beach.

Citing a number of outstanding unresolved discovery matters, and the possibility of new information, Decade stated that adopting any schedule for the proceeding was premature.

Nevertheless, Decade had no objection to the major schedule proposed by Licensee, so long as there would be no burden to overcome in proposing revisions to the schedule which might be necessitated by succeeding events, such as the injection of significant new issues into the proceeding. With respect to the collateral schedule proposed by Licensee, Decade proposed that two filings be linked directly to the issuance of the SER, rather than due on a date certain -- i.e., that Decade's discovery requests on the SER (if any) be due two weeks after Decade's receipt of the SER, and that Decade's Amendment to its t Motion Concerning Litigable Issues be due one week after receipt of responses to its discovery requests on the SER.

Judge Bloch adopted the proposed schedule, including the collateral schedule, but directed Licensee to convert its i

collateral schedule into terms of number of days following receipt of documents. The collateral schedule translates as follows, assuming the documents are received, through hand delivery, on the day of issuance or filing:

Issuance of the SER/EIA Decade's Discovery Requests (if 12 days any) on New Information in the after SER/EIA receipt of l SER/EIA Responses to Decade's Discovery 15 days after l Requests on the SER/EIA receipt of i discovery requests i

l Decade's Amendment, if any, to its 7 days after Motion Concerning Litigable receipt of l

' Issues Based on New Informatior. responses to in the SER/EIA discovery requests 1 -

.SHAW, PirrMAN, PoTTs & TROWCRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP OF pmOFESSIONAL ComponATIONS Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

June 7, 1982 Page 5 Responses of Staff and Licensee to 14 days after Motion Amendment receipt of motion amendment Decade's Reply to Responses of Staff 14 days after and Licensee receipt of responses of Staff and Licensee Judge Bloch noted that the schedule was a " target" schedule, " amenable to adjustment." As Judge Bloch explained the schedule, the Board intends to adhere to the schedule, and expects the parties to adhere to the schedule, though it may be modified for good cause. In response to an inquiry by Decade, Judge Bloch stated that there would be no legal burden to overcome on the part of any party who sets forth reasons to change the schedule.

Judge Bloch raised Deaade's May 13, 1982 letter to the Board, which requested leave to undertake discovery on

, issues raised by LER 82-007 for Point Beach Unit 1 (which reported leakage detected in a sleeved tube from which explo-sive plugs were removed). Counsel for Licensee stated that, by letter dated May 25, 1982, Licensee had stipulated that it will not sleeve tubes which have been previously plugged with explosive plugs. In light of that stipulation, Judge Bloch requested that Decade explain the continued validity (if any) l of the requested discovery. Decade was not prepared to argue l the subject during the conference call, but agreed to file a written response to the Board's question on June 2, 1982.

The Staff argued its opposition to Decade's May 20, 1982 letter, which requested a Board order requiring the Staff to keep Decade informed, on a continuing basis, on a number of topics. The Staff objected to the proposed discovery as l irrelevant to the issues in the instant proceeding, overbroad and too general, and excessively burdensome.

Judge Bloch proposed that the Staff attempt to

! informally resolve the dispute by providing Decade with i information about new forms of steam generator tube degradation

( not discussed in NUREG-0886, " Steam Generator Tube Experience,"

I as well as information about the operating experience of

! sleeved tubes at San Onofre and Ginna. If the information provided to Decade does not meet Decade's needs, Decade will ,

I

.SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNEmSMim OF PROFESSIONAL ComponATIONS Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

June 7, 1982 Page 6 inform the Staff, so that the Staff may respond formally to Decade's May 20, 1982 letter.

Counsel for Licensee emphasized that Licensee does not consider information concerning all forms of steam genera-tor tube degradation to be relevant to the Point Beach license amendment request which is the subject of the instant pro-ceeding. Accordingly, Licensee's silence on the proposed informal resolution of the issues raised in Decade's May 20, 1982 letter should not be interpreted as an admission of the relevance of those issues.

This letter has been reviewed by all parties.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE f

l By 0{wk v  ; w:

W uce W. Churcn111 Counsel for Licensee cc: Judge Jerry R. Kline Judge Hugh C. Paxton Service List Attached i

i i

i l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

Before the l'omic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266

) 50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (OL Amendment)

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Panel Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Wasington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

1229 - 41st Street Office of the Executive Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Lagal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline Wasington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Kathleen M. Falk, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wisconsin's Environmental Decade Washington, D.C. 20555 114 North Carroll Street Suite 208 Atomic Safety and Licensing Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Francis X. Davis, Esq.

I Washington, D.C. 20555 Monroeville Nuclear Center Westinghouse Electric Corporation l Atomic Safety and Licensing P. O. Box 355 Appeal Board Panel Pittsburgh, PA 15230 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

John R. Kenrick, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott Office of the Secretary Forty-Second Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 600 Grant Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 O

l

{

l

_ ._ _