ML20070M061
| ML20070M061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1983 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301120249 | |
| Download: ML20070M061 (16) | |
Text
,
E
\\
,u'
,fiED -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C,OMMISSION 10 /\\f0:h BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e
- 7 76
~
In the Matter of
-)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, -- --et al.
)
Docket'Nos. 50-413
)
50-414 (Catawba Nuclear-Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' SUBMITTAL CONCERNING SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY MADE PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 22, 1982 On December 22, 1982, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order ruling on various discovery matters..Therein, the Board requested the parties "to submit detailed proposed schedules leading to a hearing, and to suggest agenda items for discussions on ways in which the case could be expedited."
(p. 26).
The Board also asked the parties "to be prepared to discuss the discovery ' rules' of the Byron case for possible use in this case." (pl.)
Finally, the Board asked the parties "to advise us at your earliest convenience as to which, if any, prefreeze pleadings (or parts of pleadings) require a Board ruling." (p. 25).
The following serves as Aoplicants' reply to the Board's request.
Schedule At the October 7-8, 1982 Prehearing Conference, Applicants submitted a schedule leading to an October 1, 1983 hearing.
(Tr. 436-441).
Since that time the Board has made various rul-ings which impact upon that schedule.
Taking such rulings into 8301120249 830107
~
PDR ADOCK 05000413 Q
%SD 3
~
i consideration, Applicants have prepared a schedule and attach it hereto as Appendix A.
Applicants would make several comments with respect to Appendix A:
First, by way of identification, Appendix A consists of a chronological detailed month by month presentation explaining the obligations of the various parties and neces-sary actions of the Board in order to complete discovery and commence hearings in the Fall of 1983.
Second, the level of detail contained in Appendix A has been occasioned by the Board's December 22, 1982 ruling which gave Palmetto Alliance an unrestricted "first right of dis-covery" (which consists of 2 rounds of discovery) before it is made to respond to Applicants and Staff interrogatories.
Applicants assume that the other contentions submitted in this proceeding would come under the same ground rules and have accordingly factored them into the schedule submitted.
Third, the time frames selected (1) have been specifi-cally directed by the Board (i.e., Palmetto Alliance to serve follow-up interrogatories on Applicants concerning Contentions 8,
16 and 27 by February 21, 1983), (2) parallel time frames utilized by the Board (i.e.,
the time provided for follow-up interrogatories is 10 days from service of supplemental answers),
^
or (3) correspond to the times provided in the regulations
q (i.e.,
10 CFR S2.740b provides that answers to interrogatories be furnished within 14 days after service; 10 CFR 52.710 provides that 5 days be added to prescribed periods for. matters served by mail).
Fourth, the schedule calls for Palmetto Alliance to file on January 14, 1983, a Motion to Compel (if it so chooses) regarding Applicants' response to interrogatories regarding contentions 6, 7 and 44 filed December 31, 1982.
Under the regulations, such Motion would be due January 10, 1983.
Fifth, the schedule advanced provides maximum times within which to act (i.e., after submittal of the last inter-rogatory answers, discovery is left open for a period of time thereafter; time is provided for the summary disposition process, which process may not even be availed.of).
If events transpire which impact on specific dates set forth in the schedule, such should not result in a corresponding shippage of the entire schedule.
Rather, given the maximum nature of the schedule, such could be modified without changing the designated hearing dates.
Sixth, Applicants have not provided for a specific dis-covery schedule for CMEC.
Experience indicates that such can be handled informally and application of the Commission's rules will be adequate to resolve any potential dispute.
How-ever, to bring finality about, Applicants propose to close y
~-
i 4'--
discovery with CMEC on the date selected for the other-Inter-venors, viz, June 30, 1983.
Seventh, Applicants have consolidated the obligations of Palmetto Alliance and CESG with respect to those contentions which are joint among them,'viz, Palmetto Alliance Contention 44 and DES 17 and 22.
Agenda Items Applicants advance the following agenda items as ways in which case could be expedited:
1.
Strict adherence to schedules - strong show-ing of good cause necessary to vary from i
schedule.
2.
Imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, i
for failure to comply with responsibilities and obligations of parties under the Com-mission's rules.
3.
Utilization of summary disposition.
4.
Submittal.of Trial Brief and pre-filed testi--
mony to Board and parties 2 weeks in advance of such hearing.
5.
Submittal of cross-examination plan to Board and parties in advance of such hearing.
6.
Selection of 1 spokesman per party for each contention discussed at hearing.
For joint contentions, e.g., Palmetto Alliance /
CESG contention concerning embrittlement, one single spokesman should be designated.
7.
Provision of specific time limits for hearing (i.e., each phase of hearing to last no more than weeks).
\\
l
m 8.
Obtainment of necessary subpoenas 30 days prior to hearing.
Application of Byron Discovery Rules Applicants have reviewed the discovery " rules" set forth in Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-678, 15 NRC 1400, 1405-06 (1982).
Appli-cants are of the view that the Board has already applied the relevant rules to this' case (i. e., " rule" 3).
However, to be fully responsive Applicants' views on each " rule" are set forth below:
1.
Applicants are willing to confer with Inter-venors concerning logistical matters such as making documents available for production and service of documents.
However, Applicants see no value in conferring directly with Palmetto Alliance with regard to disagree-ments between Palmetto Alliance and Applicants concerning discovery.
Applicants base this position upon its dealings with Palmetto Alliance and/or its counsel in this case and other proceedings.
To the extent CESG joins with Palmetto Alliance in discovery, Appli-cants take the same position with respect to discussions with CESG.
However, with respect to CMEC, as noted above, Applicants are of the view that such discussions with CMEC would be of benefit and indeed have already pursued such a course.
2.
Applicants concur.
The parties have already put one another on notice of this obligation.
See i.e.,
Applicants interrogatories to Palmetto Alliance, April 9, 1982.
3.
Applicants view that this matter has already been accounted for in the Board's December 22, 1982 Order.
4.
At present Applicants do not view expedited service as necessary. 1/
However, as the case proceeds, events may transpire which' necessitate such service.
. Applicants concur.
5.
6.
Applicants view that-this matter has already been accounted for in the Board's December 22, 1982 Order.
7.
Applicants concur that discovery should be concluded in an efficient manner.. Applicants 4
would note that the schedule they have sug-gested should not be viewed as " accelerated,"
rather, as not'ed above, it provides " maximum" times.
8.
Applicants view that this matter has already been accounted for in the Board's December 22, 1982 Order.
9.
Applicants view that this matter has already been accounted for in the Board's December 22, 1982 Order.
Matters Requiring Board Ruling Applicants consider two "prefreeze" matters to be open.-
First, on April 28, 1982, Palmetto Alliance filed a Motion for a Protective Order concerning Contentions 6 and 7; on May 13, 1982, App 12 cants filed an Opposition to Palmetto I
Alliance's Motion; on December 16, 1982, the Staff filed a Motion to Compel responses to interrogatories concerning
-1/
Applicants have utilized expedited service in one limited area of their proposed schedule, viz, service of motions for summary disposition and responses thereto.
l
.. - - -,.,, - - +, - - _ ~ _.. - -.
Contention 7; on December 20, 1982, Applicants filed a Motion to Compel responses to interrogatories concerning Contentions 6 and 7 or in the alternative to dismiss Conten-tion 7.
While Applicants maintain that such are proper sub-jects for present Board action, given the Board's December 22, 1982 rulings concerning similar issues, albeit on different contentions, Applicants view such pleadings as no longer pending. 2/
Second, on April 20, 1982, Palmetto Alliance moved that the Staff be directed to answer interrogatories concerning Contentions 6, 7, 18, 40 and 43. 3/
On May 7, 1982, the
-2/
Applicants position in no way should be viewed as preju-dicing their right to seek reconsideration, referral and/or certification of the Board's December 22, 1982 Memorandum and Order.
Further, if Applicants are in error in their view as to the Board's treatment of this issue, then such is before the Board and should be ruled upon promptly so as to assist in the formulation of a proper schedule leading to hearings in the Fall of 1983.
-3/
The Board's Memorandum and Order of December 1, 1982 dirmissed Cont'entions 18, 40 and 43 from the proceeding.
(p. 3).
Staff: opposed answering such interrogatories. -Board ruling on this matter is necessary.
Respectfully. submitted,
/j.
f
/
j
/J. Michael McG,arry, III Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9833 William L. Porter Albert V. Carr, Jr.
Ellen T.
Ruff DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.
January 7, 1983 1
e f
APPENDIX A PROPOSED SCHEDULE DATE PARTY 03 LIGATION JANUARY 1983 Jan. 10 Palmetto Follow-up interrogatories to NRC Alliance Staff on Contentions'8 and 27.
Jan. 14 Palmetto (a) Motion to Compel re Staff 12/15/82 Alliance responses to interrogatories on Con-tentions 16 and 44.
(b) Motion to Compel re Applicants' 12/31/82 responses to interroga-tories on Contentions 6, 7 and 44.
(c) Response to Applicants' 9/22/82 and 10/19/82 objections and respon-ses regarding Contentions 8, 16 and 27.
Jan. 25 Board (a) Ruling on Palmetto Alliance 1/14/83 Motions to Compel and 1/14/83 response to Applicants objections and responses.
(b) Ruling on NRC Staff's 5/7/82 objec-tions to Palmetto Alliance interro-gatories on Contentions 6 and 7. 1/
Jan. 30 NRC Staff Response to Palmetto Alliance 1/10/83 follow-up interrogatories on Contentions 8 and 27.
FEBRUARY 1983 Feb. 9 Palmetto Interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 Alliance and 22.
Feb. 11 Applicants (a) File supplemental responses, if any, to Palmetto Alliance 9/3/82 and 9/27/82 interrogatories on Contentions 8, 16 and 27.
(b) File supplemental responses, if any, to Palmetto Alliance 4/20/82 and 9/27/82 interrogatories on Contentiens 6, 7 and 44.
1/
If Palmetto Alliance's 4/28/82 Motion For Protective Order and Applicants' 5/13/82 opposition thereto and 12/20/82 Motion to compel are before the Board, such should be ruled upon on 1/25/83.
.-,---ww---p.
DATE-PARTY OBLIGATION
~
Feb. 11 NRC Staff (a) File responses, if any,-to Palmetto (con't.)
Alliance 4/20/82 interrogatories on Contentions 6 and 7.
1 (b) File supplemental responses, if any, to Palmetto Alliance 9/3/82 and 9/27/82 interrogatories on Conten-tions 16 and 44.
Feb. 21 Palmetto (a) Follow-up interrogatories, if any, Alliance to Applicants on Contentions 6, 7,
8, 16, 27 and 44.
(b) Follow-up interrogatories to NRC Staff, if any, on Contentions 6, 7, 16 and 44.
Feb. 28 Applir' ants File responses to Palmetto Alliance 2/9/83 interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff File responses to Palmetto Alliance 2/9/83 interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
MARCH 1983 March 10 Palmetto Motion to Compel re Applicants' and Alliance NRC Staff's 2/28/83 responses to Conten-tions DES 17 and 22.
March 14 Applicants Responses to Palmetto Alliance 2/21/83 follow-up interrogatories on Contentions 6, 7,
8, 16, 27 and 44.
NRC Staff Responses to Palmetto Alliance 2/21/83 interrogatories on Contentions 6, 7,
16 and 44.
March 21 Board Ruling on Palmetto Alliance 3/10/83 Motion to Compel re Applicants' and NRC Staff's responses to Palmetto Alliance interrogatories on Contention DES 17 and 22.
r APRIL 1983 April 1 Palmetto Response to Applicants' 4/9/82, 8/6/82, Alliance 8/16/82 and 12/_/82 and NRC Staf f's 5/7/82, 8/13/82 and 12/15/82 interro-gatories on Contentions 6, 7,
8, 16, 27 and 44.
i
..~
DATE PARTY OBLIGATION April 7 Applicants Supplemental responses to Palmetto Alliance 2/21/83 interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff Supplemental responses to Palmetto Alliance 2/21/83 interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
April 11 Applicants Motions to Compel re Palmetto Alliance responses of 4/1/877 NRC Staff Motions to Compel re Palmetto Alliance responses of 4/1/877 April 18 Palmetto Follow-up interrogatories to Applicants Alliance and NRC Staff re Contentions 17 and 22.
April 22 Board Ruling on Applicants' and NRC Staff's 4/11/83 Motions to Compel.
MAY 1983 May 9 Applicants (a) Responses to Palmetto Alliance 4/18/83 follow-up interrogatories re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
(b) interrogatories to' Palmetto Alliance re Contention DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff (a) Responses to Palmetto Alliance 4/18/82 follow-up interrogatories re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
(b) interrogatories to Palmetto Alliance re Contention DES 17 and 22.
Palmetto Supplemental response to Applicants Alliance 4/19/82, 8/6/82, 8/16/82 and 12/_/82 and NRC Staff's 5/7/82, 8/13/82 and 12/15/82 interrogatories on Conten-tions 6, 7,
8, 16, 27 and 44.
May 27 Palmetto Response to Applicants' and NRC Staff's Alliance 5/9/83 interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
l l
DATE PARTY OBLIGATION y
JUNE 1983 June 6 Applicants Motion to Compel re Palmetto Alliance 5/27/83 response to interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff Motion to Compel re Palmetto Alliance 5/27/83 response to interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
June 17 Board Ruling on Applicants' and NRC Staff's 6/6/83 Motion to Compel re Palmetto Alliance interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
June 30 Discovery closed re Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6, 7,
8, 16, 27 and 44, CESG Contention 18 and CMEC Contentions 1-4.
JULY 1983 July 5 Palmetto Supplemental responses to Applicants' Alliance and NRC Staff's 5/19/83 interrogatories on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
July 15 Applicants Follow-up interrogatories re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff Follow-up interrogatories re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
July 20 All Parties File by hand motions for summary disposi-tion except as to Contentions DES 17 and 22.
AUGUST 1983 Aug. 3 Palmetto Response to Applicants' and Staff's Alliance 7/15/83 follow-up interroaatories re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
Aug. 9 All Parties Respond by hand to 7/20/83 summary dispositions.
1 w
a
+-.
~
DATE PARTY OBLIGATION SEPTEMBER 1983 Sept. 2 Discovery closed re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
Sept.
9' Board Ruling re 7/20/83 motions for summary disposition.
Sept. 16 Applicants Filing by hand of motions 'for summary disposition re DES 17 and 22.-
NRC Staff Filing by hand of motions for summary disposition re DES 17 and 22.
Palmetto Filing by hand of motions for summary Alliance disposition re DES 17 and 22.
OCTOBER 1983 Oct. 3 All Parties Filing of prefiled testimony and trial briefs on all contentions except DES 17 and 22.
Oct. 6 Applicants Filing by hand of responses to 9/16/83 motion for summary disposition.
NRC Staff Filing by hand of responses to 9/16/83 motion for summary disposition.
I Palmetto Filing by hand of responses to 9/16/83 Alliance motion for summary disposition.
Oct. 12 All Parties Filing of cross-examination plans.
Oct. 17 Commencement of hearings on all Conten-tions except DES 17 and 22.
Board Ruling on 9/16/83 motion for summary disposition.
NOVEMBER 1983 Nov. 4 Close of hearings on all Contentions except DES 17 and 22.
l
DATE PARTY OBLIGATION Nov. 18
. Applicant Submit trial brief, and prefiled testi-many re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff Submit trial brief, and prefiled testi-mony re Contentions DES 17 and 22.
Palmetto Submit trial brief, and prefiled testi-Alliance mony re Contentions DES 17 andE22.
Nov. 30 Applicant Submit cross-examination plan re Conten-tions DES 17 and 22.
NRC Staff Submit cross-examination plan re Conten-tions DES 17 and 22.
Palmetto Submit cross-examination plan re Conten-
-~
Alliance tions DES 17 and 22.
DECEMBER 1983 Dec. 5 Commence hearings on Contentions DES 17 and 22.
Dec. 9 Close hearings on DES 17 and 22.
,___--..._.,,y.
..,,,,-,,_g.,
-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'" Applicants' Submittal Concerning Schedule and Discovery Made Pursuant To Board Order Of
)
December 22, 1982" in the above captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United-States mail this 7th day of January, 1983.
James L.
Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
A.
Dixon Callihan William L.
Porter, Esq.
Union Carbide Corporation Albert V.
- Carr, Jr.,
Esq.
P.O.
Box Y Ellen T.
Ruff, Esq.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Duke Power. Company P.O.
Box 33189 Dr. Richard F.
Foster Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 i
P.O.
Box 4263 Sunriver, dregon 97702 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
l Assistant Attorney General Chairman State of South Carolina Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O.
Box 11549 Board Panel Columbia, South Carolina 29211 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Guild, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Attorney-at-Law P.O.
Box 12097 Chairman Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Palmetto Alliance U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 2135 1/2 Devine Street Commission Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
2-Jesse L.
Riley Scott Stucky 854 Henley Place Docketing and Service Section Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Henry A.
Presler Washington, D.C.
20555 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition 943 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
/
__//
. Michael McG4rry, IFI 1
m t
t
-.m__---.~,
..r
~.,-
._..,....,_.-r_
- - - - -