ML20054F724

Comments Supporting ASLB Proposed Order Which Would Stay Formal Discovery on All Admitted Contentions Except Palmetto Alliance Contention 8,15 & 16.If Alliance Contentions Admitted,Discovery Would Take Place.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054F724
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/15/1982
From:	Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206170251
Download: ML20054F724 (6)

Text

, . . . . . . . . . - . . . .

'o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COE11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL. Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (CatawbaNuclearStation, Units 1 and 2)

COMMENTS OF NRC STAFF ON PROPOSED ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING RULINGS ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS

1. INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff hereby submits its coments on the Proposed Order (Staying Discovery Pending Rulings on Certified Questions) as requested by the Licensing Board by its Order (Soliciting Coments on Draft Order Staying Discovery) of June 2,1982.

The Proposed Order would stay all fomal discovery in this proceeding pending further order of the Board. More particularly, the l Board contemplates certifying "at least some" of the rulings on i

contentions which have been the subject of reconsideration and certifi-cation motions, and would resume formal discovery only after disposition of the issues by the Appeal Board, possibly sometime in the fall.

Proposed Order at 2. The Proposed Order would thus modify the Board's May 25, 1982 Memorandum and Order, which stayed fomal discovery only on those contentions which were the subject of the reconsideration and certification requests, and only until the Licensing Board ruled on the

pending motions.

i DESIGNATED ORIGINAL j 8206170251 820615 3' "-

PDR ADOCK 05000413 Certified By 0 PDR J

. The stay of discovery pending disposition of these reconsideration and certification requests is grounded upon two factors: (1) reconsider-ation and/or certification review may result in the rejection of some contentions thereby rendering unnecessary discovery on those contentions, and (2) due to slippage in the construction completion date for Unit 1, discovery can be deferred by as much as five months while still allowing sufficient time for the proceed'ng to be completed prior to completion of Unit 1.

II. DISCUSSION Discovery on Contentions Involving Operator Qualifications and Spent Fuel Storage are Unaffected by the Certification Requests, and Need Not Be Stayed The Staff agrees that it is appropriate to stay discovery as to the contentions which are the subject of the Staff's and Applicants' objections and certification requests. The stay will defer the burden l of conducting discovery on contentions which may ultimately be dismissed upon either reconsideration or certification review, rendering the discovery unnecessary. And delay in the construction schedule means that such a stay will not prevent completion of the proceeding prior to the new fuel load date. Since such a stay would defer discovery on most of the emergency plarning contentions, it may economize resources also to defer discovery on the emergency planning contention which was not the subject of Staff and Applicants' certification requests -- Palmetto Alliance Contention 27.

However, should the Licensing Board rule that the three contentions which were the subject of Licensing Board questions in its March 5, 1982 Order -- Palmetto Alliance Contention 8, on operator qualifications, and Palmetto Alliance contentions 15 and 16, on storage of spent fuel from s

other Duke facilities at Catawba -- are to be admitted, the Staff believes discovery on these contentions could fruitfully proceed upon admission of those contentions. These issues are clearly distinct from those for which certification is requested, inasmuch as their admission does not depend upon revision after the availability of either Staff or Applicant documents, nor upon discovery. As a result, their status in this proceeding should not be affected by Appeal Board rulings on the certification questions, and delay in initiation of discovery on these three contentions would not avoid possibly unnecessary discovery, as is the case with the other contentions.

Further, Palmetto Alliance Contention 8 is sufficiently specific to allow meaningful discovery to proceed; and while the Staff has argued that Palmetto Alliance contentions 15 and 16 lack specificity and i

basis,1/ nasmuch i as the Licensing Board has found such specificity and l basis to exist, the Staff believes it is appropriate to attempt to refine these issues at this stage. Narrowing of the issues could, for example, assist the Staff in focusing its own safety and environmental evaluation, which is on-going.

Finally, the subject matter of these contentions is sufficiently I

distinct from other conditionally admitted contentions so that proceeding with discovery on these issues several months prior to any further discovery would not necessarily lead to uneconomical use of party and Board I resources and time.

l

-1/ NRC Staff Response to Supplemental Statements of Contentions by Petitioners to Intervene, dated December 30, 1981.

- In short, discovery on these issues in no way conflicts with the reasons for stayin.1 discovery as to contentions subject to certification, and could assist in advancing the proceeding as to the contentions involved.

III. CONCLUSION The Staff supports issuance of the Proposed Order distributed for coment to the parties in the Board's June 2,1982 Memorandum and Order, staying all formal discovery as to the contentions admitted into this proceeding, except with respect to Palmetto Alliance contentions 8, 15 and 16.

In the event the Licensing Board admits these three contentions, the Staff believes meaningful discovery on these contentions could then take place. This discovery would help narrow these issues for resolution and would not be inconsistent with the stay of discovery as to all other contentions. Therefore, the Staff supports issuance of the Proposed Order modified to permit fonnal discovery among the parties on Palmetto Alliance contentions 8,15 and 16 to comence upon a determination by the Licensing Board that those contentions are admitted as issues to be litigated.

Resp tfully submitted, George E. J nson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of June, 1982.

. . - _~ .2.: . . . . - :: . .:. = -- r ;- .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL. Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station.

Units 1 and 2) .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " COMMENTS OF NRC STAFF ON PROPOSED ORDER ,

STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING RULINGS ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of June, 1982:

l l

• James L. Kelley, Chairman Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Debevoise and Liberman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 Ur. Dixon Callihan Robert Guild, Esq.

Union Carbide Corporation Attorney for the Palmetto Alliance P.O. Box Y . 314 Pall Mall Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 J

l Dr. Richard F. Foster Palmetto Alliance P.O. Box 4263 .

2135h Devine Street Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Columbia, Sooth Carolina 29205 l

Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regualtory Commission 2.'C'. Dox 11549 .

Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 -

• Docket and Service Section

!

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regualtory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 l

. .; :. 3: ==: . - - --~l--- . - ; -..... a Donald R. Belk Safe Energy Alliance 2213 East Seventh Street Charlotte,' North Carolina 28204 Henry Presler, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition 942 lienley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 William L. Porter Esq.

Albert V. Carr, Esq.

l Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.

Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242 (4.- %

" \/ George E Johnson Counsel for NRC Staff

. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ -