ML20128F776

Memorandum & Order (Discovery & Hearing Schedules).* All Discovery Responses Must Be Filed 30 Days Following Receipt of Discovery Requests,W/Final Response to Be Filed by 930412.Served on 930210

ML20128F776
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	02/09/1993
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	FRIENDS PEACE EXCHANGE (FORMERLY MOTHERS FOR PEACE), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
CON-#193-13614 92-669-03-OLA-2, 92-669-3-OLA-2, OLA-2, NUDOCS 9302120030
Download: ML20128F776 (5)

Text

./%H NCr.L ilD USNi- C

'93 FEB 10 A9 32 att a Etcn 1 '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :k. b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

BERVED FEB 1 0 1993 Before Administrative Judges: '

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman _

Dr. JLrry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon ,

~~

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA-2 50-323-OLA-2 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP Ho. 92-669-03-OLA-2 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units (Construction Period 1 and 2) Recovery)

Facility Operating Licenses No. DPR-80 and DPR-82 February 9, 1993 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery and Hearina Schedules) -_

On February 3, 1993, in accordance with the procedure set forth in LBP-93-1, at pp. 53-54, and in our Memorandum dated January 28, 1993, the Licensing Board conducted a telephone conference call to establish discovery and future hearing schedules for this proceeding. Participating, along with the three Licensing Board Administrative Judges, were:

1. Aeolicant:

David Repka, Esq.

Richard Locke, Esq.

Christopher-Warner, Esq.

9302120030 PDR 930209 t' ADOCK 05000275 O PDR .

-[p

i -2 -

2. NRC Staff:

Ann Hodgdon, Esq.

Lisa B. Clark, Esq.

Sheri R. Peterson, Project Manager

3. Mothers for Peace (MPP):

Ms. Jill ZaMek Ms. Nancy Culver Ms. Rochelle Becker I. Scope of Contention V:

At the outset, the Applicant asked for clarification of the scope of Contention V, concerning Thermo-Lag interim protection. Specifically, MFP claimed that the contention included the generic validity of the interim measures, as well as the Applicant's adherence to those measures. The Applicant (joined by the S'.af f) expressed the belief that the contention only challenged the adequacy of the Applicant's adherence to those measures.

The Licensing Board ruled that, as a result of the _

bases submitted in support of the contention (consisting of such matters as missed fire watches and the defeat by PG&E personnel of certain fire barriers), the adequacy of the Applicant's adherence to interim measures was all that was in issuo.

II. Discovery Schedules:

The Applicant sought a schedule under which all discovery requests would be in hand by March 3, 1993. MFP sought 4 months for discovery, basing its request on the asserted lack in the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) of

W the updated FSAR, the Technical Specifications, and Piping and Instrument Drawings (P&ID).

1. The Board ruled that initial discovery requests must be filed by March 8, 1993. This ruling assumed that the FSAR and Technical Spocjfications would be availablo la the LPDR. Ono of the Applicant's counsel agrouw to moot with one of MFP's representativos at the LPDR on Friday, February 5, 1993, to ascertain whether this was co and to instruct tho MFF representativo how to use the microficho syntom in the LPDB, if necessary.

Judge Shon was informed by to?.ophone call from Ann llodgdtn on February 4, 1993, that Ms. ZaMok of MPP .nd Mr.

Warner, PG&E Counsel, would inopoct the LPDR on Thursday, February 4, 1993. Ms. Ilodgdon exprossed her boliof to Judge l

Shon that the FSAR was availablo in uplated status in microficho in completo form and in hard copy without cortain recont updatos. Ms. Ilodgdon expressed her tolief that tho l Technical Specifications are availablo only in microficho a7d that the P&ID are not available in tho LPDR. (If not available thoro, the P&ID should be mado available to MFP as soon as possible, to enable MFP conveniently to utilize the P&ID in the formulation of its discovery requests.) on Monday, February 8, 1993, Ms. Hodgdon and Mr. Repka cach confirmod to Judge Dechhoofor by tolophone that the aforesaid Fobruary 4, 1993 inspection of the LPDR had taken place.

I l

c l

2. All discovery responnon (including objections, if C any) must be filed thirty (30) dayo following recolpt of tho discovory requesto, with tho final responoo to bo filed by  ;

i Monday, April 12, 1993. (The Applicant will specifically have 30 days from the dato of corvico of MFP'o February 3,  ;

-1993 Roquest for Entry upon tho Diablo' Canyon sito pursuant. i to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.741(a)g2) to respond to that roquest.)

3. MPP oxplicitly sought the scheduling of a second ,

round of discovery. The Applicant and Staff did not boliovo

-1 that a cocond round was noconnary. We declined to not a second round inanmuch as parties could later request a accond round for good causo chown. In thin rogard, if_MPP or any other party.boliovos that particulur discovery  ;

requesta have boon inadoquately anoworod,--it can thoroafter filo a Motion-to compel discovery under 10 C.F.R.-9 2.740(f) and request clarification or further explanation or elaboration of a responco.

4. Motions for summary disposition aronto bo' filed by-May 3, 1993. Responses are to be filed in accordance with tho cchedulos opocified by 10 C.F.R._S 2.749. -(Extensions-of timo nay-bo-roquested,-for good cause shown.)

t li

• e-e- eue.-g-e#7 v .w -w g-. -s e q w 44ggiq.y. gp.- ,.gyy e w 9*9 v7 w , s e q .eemye-m3- 9 ,y e gr w --g e WTer*T+y- (

• V

4 5

5, Direct testimony, to the extent nocessary, would tentatively be filed by July and the evidentiary hearing would be scheduled for lato July or August, 1993.

FOR T!!E ATOMIC "AFETY AllD LICE!-ISI!1G BOARD

, 1.- fd !bwv 1 CT1arlos Dochiloofer,: Chairman ADMI!11STRATIVE JUDGE Dothenda, Maryland February 9, 1993 ,

i r

,i- e y- w M s yn +