ML20084Q947

Proposed Schedule for Litigation of Remaining Issues & Filing of Proposed Findings.Aslb Should Adopt Listed Schedule for Conduct of Hearings & Establish Schedules & Adopt Procedures.Related Correspondence

ML20084Q947
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/18/1984
From:	Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20084Q918	List: ML20084Q915 ML20084Q922 ML20084Q930 ML20084Q933 ML20084Q937 ML20084Q940 ML20084Q947
References
NUDOCS 8405210601
Download: ML20084Q947 (6)

Text

- - . .

m-  :' r m n

"*Y $' M8/l A11:28

[

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n. c y, ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,3:giA r PkN' ORANCH

', BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

i In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 .

COMPANY, ET AL. )

) (Application for (Comanche Peak Stec.m Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

i APPLICANTS' PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR LITIGATION OF RD1 AINING ISSUES AND FILING OF PROPOSED FINDINGS' I. INTRODUCTION

~~

On May 8, 1984, Texas Utilities Electric Company

(" Applicants") filed its motions for (1) a revised hearing l

! schedule, (2) adoption of special procedures, and (3) clari-i fication of issues. Therein, Applicants provided information in affidavit form regarding Applicants' schedule of late September, 1984, for fuel loading for Comanche Peak, Unit One. In view of this scheduled fuel load date, Applicants proposed that the Board adopt expedited schedules and special procedures to assure com-pletion of litigation of the remaining issues in sufficient time to render a decision prior to fuel load.

PY 9

O!b!S PDR

otion, Applicants proposed that the Board adopt a [

t trings which would provide for four consecutive gs, commencing with hearings on Wednesday, May 30 4 .  :

y, June 2, than resuming on Monday, June 4 and by through Friday, through June 22.1/ An addi-ks of hearingn were proposed, commencing July 9 through August 3.

II. APPLICANTS' PROPOSED SCHEDULE

propose below the schedule for litigation of all i is that will likely require hearings for resolu- [

4 ive it is imperative that this schedule be estab-1

'ihat the parties may allocate their resources and a

.jonitor a timely decision.

Applicants believe that

t fividualissueswithinthescopeofthebroad a hearings remain to be held are susceptible to

~

^ "

tion and, therefore, intend to seek such dis-I er ponsible.

has histructed that' the parties be prepared to iltions, during the conferonce call next Tuesday, -

. t'

+

pending sumrary diaposition matters are suscep-ition on the pleadings.. Following that discussion, 2

imably will specity which matters will be handled

is'and which v 11 be addressed at trial.. Depending l

1 .

?s ,

.)psdify, infra,thisproposedschedule hy suggest-iearings commence on Monday, June 4,1984 and run .

. Y* -

j per week through Friday, June 29, 1984.

.l- '

I ,,

, t l

~ '

. . - _ . _ _. _ - - - . . . . _ . - _ _ - _ _ - _ ~ . ._

i 2

s i*

i on the outcome of this process and on whether the proposed spe- j cial procedures are adopted, the time requested for trial by Applicants may be more than that actually required.

The remaining issues to be scheduled for hearings now are

)

(1) Applicants' Plan (including Phase III of'Cygna's efforts) in response to the Board's December 28, 1983, Memorandum and order (Quality Assurance for Design), (2) Staff testimony regarding the Cygna IAP Report, (3) Staff walkdown (if necessary),1/ (4) i intimidation, and (4) protective coatings. During the first '

four-week hearing session to begin on June 4, 1984, the parties should litigate to conclusion those aspects of Applicant's Plan

! not designated for resolution on the pleadings, Staff testimony .

regarding the Cygna IAP Report, and the Staf f walkdown (if neces-sary). During the second four-week hearing session to begin on f

I July 9, 1984, the parties should litigate to conclusion intimida-i tion, Phase III of Cygna's efforts,1/ and protective coatings, to I

i the extent that genuine issues of material fact pertaining to these matters remain following resolution of summary disposition pleadings.

9

' 1/ Applicants recognise that the Board has requested hearings i regarding two Staff walkdowns of completed safety systems.

] Applicants have proposed that the Board reconsider the need to litigate any Staff walkdowns, and at most that the Board

limit the scope to the walkdown which has already been

completed, i.e., cable spreading room.

l 3/ Phase III of Cygna's efforts would be presented during the week of July 16-20, 1984.

Applicants also propose that the Board adopt an expedited schedule for the submission of testimony, calling for the parties to submit prefiled testimony seven days prior to the hearing session in which the topic is scheduled to be addressed (rather than twelve days, as presently required). Further, Applicants propose a schedule for the submission of proposed findings of fact. Applicants believe that the Board should call for the filing of proposed findings regarding issues already litigated (i.e., CAT, welding) consistent with the time limits set forth in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.754.

With respect to those issues not yet litigated, Applicants propose that the Board adopt an expedited schedule from that set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.754. Applicants propose that the Board require proposed findings by Applicants to be filed twenty days ,

af ter the record is closed en a porticular issue. CAGE and the Staff would submit their findings twenty-five and thirty days )

after the close of the record on a particular issue, respectively, followed by the filing of Applicants' reply findings (if any) within five days af ter the Staf f's findings.  ;

Applicants submit that these schedules should not be suspended or i otherwise altered during or due to conduct of the hearings. To postpone the filing of proposed findings until af ter completion of the last hearings would place an inordinate burden on the Board in the development of- a decision following the final round of hearings. The Board has on ma..y occasions requested that the 1

l parties begin preparation of proposed-findings without waiting

. l for the Board to schedule their submission, and this schedule thus should not be unduly burdensome as to findings on issues already litigated. With respect to issues yet to be litigated, all parties will be under similar time constraints. Thus, no party would be unfairly treated by this schedule.

Finally, Applicants submit that the deadlines for filing responsive pleadings (particularly answers to discovery requests on intiinidation) , which presently are suspended during the con-duct of hearings, must no longer be subject to such suspension.d/

It is imperative that the resolution of all matters proceed in a timely manner. The Board will, of course, be able to issue rul-ings on various pending motions orally during the hearing, if neces sa ry .

III. CONCLUSION Ap.olicants oubmit that the coard abould adopt the schedule described above for the conduct of hearings on the remaining issues in this proceeding. In addition, the Beard should establish the schedules and adopt the procedur's e for the sub- ,

mission and rasolucion of pleadings and filings not directly A/ This request does not apply to answers to summary disposi- I tion motions on the matters addressed by Applicants' plan,,

innview of the Board's approach designed to eliminate those 1 issues from trial by designating them for resolution on the pleadings.

4 related to the hearings but necessary for the resolution of the 1

i remaining issues, (e.g., proposed findings of act).

1 Respectful' y a mitted, l'

! l' l

Nichol S. Reynolds

\ l BISHOP (, LIByRM AN , COOK, PURC L y REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for the Applicants May 18, 1984 e

1 9