ML20136E544

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Logistics for Proceeding,Touching on Areas of Lodging,Transportation & Hearing Testimony
ML20136E544
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 10/24/1983
From: Knight J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Hartzman M, Kuo P, Polk H
NRC
Shared Package
ML20136B092 List:
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8311010062
Download: ML20136E544 (2)
v • d • e


Text

~-

6 T

[#

UNITED STATES

  • *t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

t

$ WASHIN TON, D. C. 20555 '

o E

%.'.'[.l.* OCT 211983

/

L-MEMORANDUM FOR: P. T. Kuo d H. E. Polk O M. Hartzman J. S. Wermiel J. L. Knox T. G. Dunning 3 O D. J. Kubicki W. Haass o%.

FROM: J. P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON LOGISTICS

1. Listed below are the "on duty" dates for each witness for the Diablo Canyon Design QA Hearing, i.e., plan to be in the hearing room at the San Luis Bay Inn in Avila Beach, CA. starting at 8:30 AM on the dates given (Sat. and Sun. excepted for new).

These dates represent our best estimate at this time. I will

- strive to keep Jane Neal of my office informed of schedular progress and give as much ' warning as possible for changes. A copy of 'the final ASLAB order setting the hearing dates is enclosed (dated Oct. 7, 1983).

9 P. T. Kuo -

Nov. 14 - Nov. 23 H. E. Polk -

Nov. 2 - Nov. 23 M. Hartzman -

Nov. 15 - Nov. 23 --

J. S. Wermiel -

Oct. 30 - Nov. 9 Nov. 16 - Nov. 23 J. L. Knox -

Nov. 15 - Nov. 23 .

. T. G. Dunning -

Nov. 15 - Nov. 23 -

D. J. Kubicki -

Nov. 15 - Nov. 23 W. Haass du 60 M. m g 5N- Nov. 23 N O g *T ,

2. You each should have a full set of all the testimony (only a few thousand pages). I highly recommend reading all the testimony on contention 1 and 2 for background as well as the counterpart to your own testimony.

Selected reading related to areas of your specific testimony in the depositions of TES and SWEC personnel for Panel 4 (non-seismic) members is also advised.

h 9 L .

Fo/ A-19-293 V P v.

g..,.,

OCT 2 41993.

I

3. LarEf Chandler, Jay ficGurren, Hans Schierling, Jerry Wermiel and I are staying at:

~

Spyglass Inn-2705 Spyglass Drive _ _

Shell Beach, CA. 93462 Telephone No.: 505-773-4855 -

4

4. I strongly recommend that you get' reservations for travel from San Luis Obispo, CA to home on Nov. 23 - NOW - It looks like we will be going right up to the wire but we still hope to finish on Nov. 22.

i The board has retained space in San Luis Obispo starting on Dec. 6, 1983 if we can not finish on Nov. 22,

~

5. Generally speaking, Jerry Wermiel will provide transportation for .

i 1 'the DSI witnesses and I will do likewise for the DE witnesses. We have been informed, however, that intermediate or full sized rental j . cars are in extremely short supply in the San Luis Obispo area so

  • we may have to break it down further. We will have a better understanding of the situation once the advanced party gets there.

~

3 t

i James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering cc: H. Denton R. Vollmer R. Mattson L. Rubenstein. ~~

0. Parr M.- Srinivasan A. Ungaro.

R. Houston F. Rosa W. Johnston

-V. Benaroya J. Taylor G. Ankrum L. Chandler J. ficGurren H. Schierling o

w h e , $ =, g eg.3giy[@N Y en M* e e a 8_ kN.$ W , ,g ,-2w-_

0J0130 -

    • ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETE AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman October 7, 1983 Dr. John H. Buck -Tr-Dr. W. Reed Johnson __ _ IT-~

(' a ndj~~,lf) e c verC*

) vi In the Matter of ) /$F'

).

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 OL

) 50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) (Reopened Proceeding -

Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ' Design Quality ,

) Assurance)

. . - ORDER This. order confirms our October'5, 1983 oral rulings, made during a telephone conference call with all parties, involving the reopened proceeding on the issue of design quality assurance.

1. In our order of September 7, 1983, we set forth a schedule for hearing commencing at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, October 24, 1983. We now have-before us Governor Deukmejian's " Motion for Modification of Schedule" and request for expedited hearing of,the motion, dated September 29, 1983, and the' responses of the. applicant and the sta#f dated October 4 and 5, respectively. We'did not receive the joint intervenors response until Octob'er 6.

'In light of all the circumstances, we grant the .

Governor's motion in part. A hearing on'the issues set

~

forth in our August 26 order and supplemented in this order 3 ~ p S gp SW hlb's .

.. : 2 shall now commence at 9.:30 a.m. on Monday, October 31, 1983, at the San Luis Bay Inn, Avila Beach, California, i.e.,

seven days later than previously scheduled. The hearing will continue on Tuesday through Friday, November 1 through November 4. There will be no recess on Friday, November 4, _

as previously-scheduled. The hearing will then resume at the same location on Monday, November 7 and continue through Thursday, November 10. A one-day recess will be taken on Fridav, November 11, because the hearin'g facility is -

unavailable. We will resume the hearing on Monday, November 14 and continue through Friday, November 18. We will then continue with the he'aring on Monday, November 21, Tuesday,

oved.ber 22 and possibly Wednesday, November 23, for at -

~

least part of the day. If we are unable to complete the hearing by November 23, we will take a short recess and ,

reconvene scretime after Thanksgiving, at an as yet undetermined location. At this time, it appears that no --

facility is available for that period in the immediate ,

i vicinity of the plant so we shall attempt to secure space in ,

San Francisco, Santa Barbara, or Los Angeles. Failing to do d so, we shall reconvene the hearing in the Washington, D.C.'

area.

2. In accord with this schedule modification, all e

prehearing items set forth in our September 7, 1983 order are now generally due one week later than indicated in that order. By agreement of all counsel, however, pre-filed,

. p

=

e

-m

I

' ~

t

~

3 4

l

(

direct testimony now shall be exchanced on' October 17, 1983. I i

4 The testimony shall be in a question and answer format, with i specification of which issues ~it addresses. In' addition, in l '

those instances where expert witnesses will form a pa~nel and l l

.the testimony is presented.as that of the panel, the -

o

, testimony.shall indicate clearly the witness or witnesses l sponsoringJeach part of the testimony. Parties shall also  ;

~

exch'ange on October 17 a full statement,-in affidavit form, j of the qualifications of each expert witness and the list of, l' panel groups if witnesses are going to.be put~on"the"sYa~iid- - ~

as a panel.1 On this same date, the parties shall exchange an exhibit list indicating all dochments an'd other items to

}

j be offered as exhibits at the hearing (except for purposes '

o$" impeachment and rebuttal) . with a brief statement following each exhibit describing its purpose and-the 4

identity of the sponsoring witness,.and all proposed exhibits, including all schedules , summaries, diagrams and c

t

charts to be used at the hearing. Each~ proposed exhibit t

, shall be premarked for identification as-either the 9

1 We. request that the parties make every effort to keep the size of the~ panels below five. It has'been our experience that the hearing process'can be most efficiently and effectively conducted when panels consist of no more

' than four members. We appreciate that the nature and .

complexity of the. subject, matter'may require in a rare or i

-isolated _ instance.a larger panel, so we do not mandate a-particular size. We expect the parties, however, to make

every effort to comply with this. guideline.

i i

applicant's, the staff's, the Governor's or the joint '

intervenors' exhibit.

  • 1
j. -

, Objections to proposed testimony and exhibits shall be

, filed by October 21,fl983'. Any party proposing to object '

to any expert testimony or exhibit shall file its objection -

1- ,

4 s

with.a full statement of the grounds for the. objection. .Any .

f party proposing to object to a witness' expertise on any 1-l subject or subjects and who wishes voir dire questioning of ,

i i

the witness shall list the witness and each specific subject

on which'the party wishes to question the witness. The
parties are expected to notify each other about such '

i objections in-advance of October 21 and to confer with respect to each such objection in a good faith. effort to -  ?

i resolve the controversy before that date.  !

i Responses to objections shall be filed by October 26,  !

i 1983. On the same date, the parties shall file their final - ,

. estimates of the length of cross-examination of each~ witness

{ or panel of-witnesses, and a statement of any other anticipatedorforeseeableproceduralorevidentiary[ssues

that.may arise-at the hearing.

9 i

4 l- .2 '

' For the purposes of -this part :of the. order ~ the words '

t

" file" or " filed" mean that'the: required papers must be'in ,

cur hands and the hands of the other. parties on the date  ;

j specified.in the order.

[

O j  :

$ i

( -- - *

~

5

, y . .,

3. Formal discovery in this,reopehed proceeding, with the exception of discovery from the staff, has been available to the parties since April 21, 1983. Discovery from the staff has been open to the. parties since July 18, 1983. 'At the August 23-24 prehearing conference, we' ordered that all discovery should close on September 28. We,now

' have before us, applicant's September 29, 1983 motion seeking the imposition of sanctions upon the Governor and joint intervenors for failure to supplement seasonably their interr'ogatory answers. Specifically, the applicant seeks to' bar several.of the expert witnesses of the Governor and the joint intervenors from testifying because such witnesses were identified in supplemental interrogatory answers just ,

prior to, or after, the September 28 date, thereby foreclosing the applicant's opportunity to depoce,the witnesses. Alternatively, the applicant seeks leave to depose the newly named experts. In their' responses, the Governor add the joint intervenors oppose the preclusion "

sanctionandprofferexplanationsfortheir.latenessi$

identifying the witnesses. The staff also opposes barring the witnesses from testifying at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant's motion for sanctions is denied. In the circumstances, the preclusion sanction is unwarranted.

Rather, the Governor shall make immediately available to the applicant for depositions Mr.' Richard B. Hubbard and Dr.

George Apostolakis. Similarly,.the joint intervenors shall 4 .

. . 4

  • g g

6' make immediately available to the applicant for depositions Dr. Peter Kempthorne and Dr. Francisco J. Samaniego. Such depositions shall be completed by Octobe'r 12, 1983. In addition, the Governor and the joint intervenors shall supplement, by October 8, 1983, all previously filed -

, interrogatory responses and document requests to acc.ount for the designation of the foregoing individuals as witnesses.

Any failure on the.part of the Governor and t.e joint intervenors to comply fully with these' orders shall result in the exclusion of the witness or witnesses from the hearing.

4. Buried in its motion to modify the hearing schedule, the Governor also requests leave to depose, by .

October 11, some thirteen additional applicant, staff and IDVP witnesses. The Governor's request is in large measure denied. We have already delayed -- in part at the behest of the Governor -- the start of the hearing one week. Further delays are unwarranted. Moreover, the Governor's suggested sche ~dule calling for the completion of thirteen additional depositions by October 11 is totally unrealistic in light of .

past discovery record'of the parties to the proceeding. -

Therefore, the Governor may depose one additional witness of the applicant. The applicant shall make the witness i .

available immediately to the Governor and the deposition ,

shall be completed by October 12, 1983. There shall be no additional depositions of staff or IDVP witnesses.

S S

  • q

o y -

5. The Governor and joint intervenors have filed a document entitled " Contentions on Design Quality Assurance," '

dated September 8, 1983. That filing purports to particularize further the issues they seek to raise,in the proceeding in accordance with our August 26, 1983 order. -

The applicant. objected to a number of these issues in a written response and we heard staff counsel's objections during the October 5 conference call. The following issues contained in the September 8 filing of 'the Governor and the joint"intervenor.s do not meet the standard set forth in our August 26 order and are not, therefore, in issue in the proceeding: 3 (a) , 3 (b) , 3(h), 3 (1) and 3 (m) .3

6. The Governor and the joint intervenors also filed '

. on' September 29 their " Additional Contentions on Design Quality Assurance," pursuant to the provisions of our August

'26, 1983 order.In a response dated October 4, the applicant also objects to each of these issues. Once again, we heard staff counsel's objections during the October 5 conference.

All the issues set forth in the Governor's and joint intervenors' September 29 filing may be litigated in the ,

proceeding. -

3 Although item 3 (f) has not been excluded, it presents . -

issues in controversy in the proceeding only insofar as -

those issues do not challenge the methodology and conclusions previously accepted in ALAB-644, 13 NRC 903, 936 et. sea. (1981).

D # 6

$ 0

,, .y - -

g

7. Any new issue's by the Governor or joint intervenors dependent on any of the most recently filed ITR revisions must be filed by Wednesday,, October 12, .and must be accompanied by a full and complete explanation of why the issue could not have been previously raised based upon a prior ITR issuance. In addition, any such issue must be' framed in conformance with the requirements set forth in our August 26 order. As we stated in that order, *

[f)or each of these issues th'e Governor and the joint intervenors must particularize the critical facts upon which they base their claim. (Footnote omitted) .

In other words, the Governor and joint intervenors are to state affirmatively all the critical facts which form the ,

basis of the new issue and not merely object to the manner in which some action was conducted. Further, the new issues 4

must identify the newly filed ITR which it concerns.

It is so ORDERED.-

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD bO MA C. J n Shoemaker Secre ary to the Appeal Board pt a

O

,e .

  • A' *
  • 4

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136E544&oldid=2837832"