ML20058D696
| ML20058D696 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1982 |
| From: | Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Callihan A, Cole R, Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207270306 | |
| Download: ML20058D696 (5) | |
Text
.
r.
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE c. F O COUNSELORS AT LAW
~
THREE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
~f I,{
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60602 EDWARD S. ISHAM. 1872-1902 WASHINGTON OFFICE ROBERT T UNCOLN. 1872-1889
_1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N W.
WituAM G. BEALE. 1885 1923 s
SUITE 840 y lI!'OSHINGTON. D.C.20036 July 22, 1982 N 2'"
s-Morton B. Margulies, Esq.
Dr. A. Dix,on,,Ca].lihan
-. s.. c Administrative Judge & Chairman Union Carbide Corporation Atomic Safety & Licensing P.O.
Box Y Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Commonwealth Edison Company -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455
Dear Administrative Judges:
This letter is in response to the Board's " Request for Information" dated July 13, 1982, requesting the parties' views on the scheduling of hearings in this proceeding.
The parties participated in a conference call on Monday, July 19th to discuss scheduling.
Since no agreement was reached regarding an appropriate schedule, this letter sets forth Commonwealth Edison's position on these matters.
As the Board recognized in its Request, the parties have been on notice for almost a year that evidentiary hearings were scheduled to commence August 18, 1982.
Prior to the Rockford League of Women Voters'
(" League") read-l mission as a party to this proceeding, Edison had fully expected that evidentiary hearings on all contentions (i.e.,
DAARE/ SAFE contentions) would be held commencing on August 18th.
However, circumstances have changed with the readmission of the League as a party.
Edison now believes that, except as indicated below, the August hearings on the DAARE/ SAFE con-tentions should be deferred.
d')
ru, 8207270306 820722 OD PDR ADOCK 05000454
\\/
0 PDR
1 Morton B. Ilargulies, Esq.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. A. Dixon Callihan July 22, 1982 Page Two 4
It is not feasible to commence hearings on August 18th on the. League's contentions.
These contentions have not yet been identified, and the remaining 26 days to August 18 are insufficient to complete such prehearing procedures as discovery, summary disposition and the filing of written testimony.
Obviously, a new schedule must be established for litigating the League's contentions.
In view of the litigation status of the League's l
contentions, it would not be productive to litigate DAARE/
l SAFE contentions and League contentions pertaining to the same issues in separate hearings.
Therefore, Edison pro-poses that hearings on DAARE/ SAFE contentions which survive the pending motions for swmmary disposition and which are substantially similar to admitted League contentions */ be heard commencing November 15, 1982, the date which we pro-pose for the commencement of hearings on League contentions.
The August hearings should proceed on contentions unrelated to League contentions unless the Board's ruling on pending i
summary disposition motions results in the dismissal of all but a few (one or two) DAARE/ SAFE contentions.
Hearings on these few contentions should commence on November 15th-as l
well.
In other words, we believe it.would be more economi-cal in terms of time and resources not to hold separate i
hearings in August on a small number of DAARE/ SAFE conten-tions.
]
l In ALAB-678 the Appeal Board instructed the l
Licensing Board to " limit the number of contentions the League can litigate to that number the Licensing Board con-cludes it can comfortably decide on the merits without unjustifiably delaying operation of'the Byron facility."
(ALAB-678 at p.
41)
Consistent with this directive, we have developed the proposed schedule set forth below.
The schedule is based upon Edison's most'recent fuel load date
-*/
Comparing DAARE/ SAFE's contentions'with the contentions to which the League has provided answers to Edison's Interrogatories, it appears that DAARE/ SAFE contentions 2(a), 4, 6, 7, 9 (a), 9(b), and 9(d) may not be dupli-cative of League contentions.
L
~'
Morton B. Margulies, Esq.
Dr. Richard F.
Cole Dr. A.
Dixon Callihan July 22, 1982 Page Three projection-for Byron Unit 1 (August 31, 1983) and the need for a Licensing Board initial decision on all contentions and Commission review thereof prior to authorizing fuel loading and low power operation.
(The use of the projected
, fuel load date as a benchmark for determining whether opera-tion of Byron will be delayed by the hearings is also con-sistent with the Appeal Board's decision.
See ALAB-678 at
- p. 41, fn. 36.)
The proposed schedule is as follows:
1.
Prior to August 9, 1982 - Licensing Board decision on admissibility of League contentions, including decision on the League's pending 2.758 petitions.
2.
August 9, 1982 - Commence discovery on League contentions.
3.
August 24, 1982 - All discovery requests to be filed.
4.
September 8, 1982 - All discovery to be completed.
5.
September 15, 1982 - Motions for summary disposi-tion to be filed.
6.
October 5, 1982 - Replies to motions for summary disposition to be filed.
7.
October 19, 1982 - Licensing Board ruling on motions for summary disposition.
~
8.
November 1, 1982 - Pre-filed testimony to be filed.
9.
November 15, 1982 - Hearings to commence.
i
~
10.
January 31,~1983 - Record closed.
11.
April 16, 1983 (75-days) - All proposed findings J
of fact and conclusions of law to be filed.
Initial decision to be 12.
July 15, 1983 (90-days) issued.
13.
August 29, 1983 (45-days) - Commission review of initial decision completed.
t s
y 7-,---
y e.
y
---m-
-,-3_m
O
\\
\\
Morton B. Margulies,sEsq.
3 Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. A.
Dixon Callihan' x
July 22, 1982 Page Four No attempt han been made to determine the. nub.ber of contentions that could be litigated between November 15, 1982 and January 31, 1983.
Too many uncertainties exist to make a reliable estimate.
Instead, we have1 estimated seven months as the time needed, prior to the August 31, 1983 fuel loading date, to complete post-hearing activities, i.e.,
the filing of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the time needed for Licensing Board and Commission decision-making.
The seven month period could be' reduced if (i) the
~
parties are willing to stipulate and abide by'the 55 day period provided in the Commission's regulations for the filing of findings of fact and conclusions of laws, and (ii) the Licensing Board is willing to issue their initial decision within the 35-day period suggested in Appendix A to_10 CFR Part 2.
In order to avoid the possibility of having to prepare witnesses and submit pre-filed' testimony on con-tentions which cannot be litigated prior to January 31, 1983, Edison would propose the following procedure.
The League should be instructed to rank its contentions by priority, as required by ALAB-678 and as' suggested by our motion to strike contentions and for certain other relief dated July 15, 1982.
The parties'should be required to file pre-filed testbnony on November 1, 1982-with respect to the first 15 contentions which the League has ranked and which survive summary disposition and other prehearing motions.
As the hearings proceed it will become apparent whether it will be possible to litigate any~ additional' League conten-l tions beyond the " top 15", prior to the January 31st close-s l
of-record date.
If it appears that litigation of additional contentions is feasible, the parties should be instructed to file pre-filed testimony with respect to the next five contentions (i.e. contentions 16 through 20 as ranked by the l
League) approximately a week before hearings on these con-l tentions would commence.
If i't appears that additional contentions, beyond 16 through 20,'can be litigated prior to January 31, 1983, this process would be repeated.
l Finally, since this process involves litigating i
l certain contentions prior to determining whether additional I
contentions can be litigated, we would propose that the l
parties be required to present their respective affinnative case with respect to each contention prior to proceeding to the next.
In other words, Edison should not be required t'o l
present its affirmative case with respect to all DAARE/ SAFE
~
l l
s
.o Morton B. Margulies, Esq.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. A.
Dixon Callihan July 22, 1982 Page Five contentions and the League's " top 15" contentions, prior to requiring that Intervenors proceed with their affirmative presentations.
Finally, in view of the fact that the only pre-hearing conference in this case was held in August, 1979, we believe that it would be appropriate for the Board to schedule a second conference.
Such a conference should serve to expedite the reconciliation of the awkward proce-dural posture of this case.
Therefore, we urge that a prehearing conference be convened prior to August 9, 1982, consistent with the proposed schedule.
We appreciate being given the opportunity to present our views on these important matters.
Sincerely,
,1 4 /4/L @
Michael I. Miller One of the Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company MIM:ldj cc:
Service List l
1