ML20195E930

Response to Intervenor 860515 Proposed Discovery Plan Setting Forth Schedule for Filing & Answering of Interrogatories & Followup Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20195E930
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/04/1986
From:	Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
References
CON-#286-394 CPA, NUDOCS 8606090288
Download: ML20195E930 (8)

Text

a

, '*O STED CORRESPONoso June 4 '1986

1. 3 UNITEP STATES OF AMERICA .'  ;

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

JUN 019666 )

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD , , , , /s

._ . . ""

q ^

In the Matter of ) 'e; TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unit 1) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN I. INTRODUCTION On May 15, 1986, consolidated Intervenors M CASE and Meddie l Gregory filed "Intervenors' Proposed Discovery Plan" ("Intervenors' Discovery Plan") , in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (" Board's") direction in the "Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order (Concerning Parties and Contentions)" (May 2, 1986) that Intervenors file a proposed discovery plan:

' setting forth the schedule for the filing and answering or interrogatories and follow-up inter-rogatories, for the taking of depositions and for such other discovery as is anticipated.

Id. pp. 12, 13. The other parties were provided with the opportunity to respond to the proposed discovery plan as if it were a motion. ,Id . On

-1/ The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") consolidated CASE and Meddie Gregory and directed that they be represented by either a single person or a team of people whose responsibilities are

" carefully delineated so as to avoid the ndcessity for multiple filings or argument. " Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order (concerning Parties and Contentions (May 2,1986).

8606090288Ogbo445 PDR ADOCK png C

r

f. lay 27, 1986 the Applicants filed their " Response to Intervenors' Proposed Discovery Plan" (" Applicants' Response"). The Staff hereby responds to Intervenors' Discovery Plan.

II. DISCUSSION The Intervenors' suggested sequence of events in their proposed Discovery Plan represents, in the Staff's view, a reasonable approach for pursuing discovery in this proceeding. However, with the exception of the June 2, 1986 date by which Intervenors have committed to file their second set of interrogratories under Phase I Discovery (see Intervenors' Discovery Plan, p.2), the Discovery Plan does not set forth any specific time periods for each hearing milestone. Accordingly, while the Staff endorses the Intervenors' general sequence of events in its Discovery Plan , the Stsff has developed an alternative schedule (Attachment A) which provides the specific time periods for each discovery milestone, and adds several additional milestones to clarify the proposed schedule. 2,/

The Staff also proposes that the matters of requests for admissions and stipulations be completed prior to the filing of summary disposition motions , rather than requiring simultaneous filing, as the Intervenors have suggested (Intervenors' Discovery Plan, p.4). In the Staff's view, the parties should be able to rely upon admissions and stipulations in their summary disposition motions; Intervenors' proposal would preclude such reliance.

~2/ As can be seen from the Staff's proposed schedule, the Staff does l not intend that CASE be required to comply with its commitment to '

file a second set of Phase I Discovery interrogatories on June 2,1986.

8 There is, however, one proposal by Intervenors to which the Staff is opposed - that is, Intervenors' suggestion that "the Staff should not be allowed to file papers after the other parties, but rather required to file at the same time as the party whose position it supports." Inter-venors' Discovery Plan, p.S. The Intarvenors' proposal would require the Staff to confer with the party responding to a motion in order to determine if its position is the same as or different from the Staff's position. Such a requirement, needless to say, is highly irregular and would impose an unwarranted burden on the Staff. Moreover, the Commission's regulations specifically provide that the Staff receive 5 l

additional days to respond to motions (except for summary disposition motions) presumably to provide additional time for the Staff's considera-tion of the views of all parties. CASE's argument that it would expedite the proceeding by deleting the short increment provided to the Staff to respond simply is not a compelling reason to deviate from the Commis-sion's clearly stated direction that the Staff respond last to motions. In sum, the Board should reject CASE's suggestion on this matter.

l As a final matter, Applicants suggest that the Board defer

,e commencement of discovery under any timetable at least until the Appeal Board has ruled on the Staff's and Applicants' appeals of the Board's May 2, 1986 "Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order (Concerning Parties and Contentions)". The Staff agrees with Applicants that the outcome of the Staff's and Applicants' appeals may potentially ,

I affect the " breadth and scope of discovery allowed the parties", if not '

render it entirely unnecessary, and thus, that

• discovery itself should not commence until the Appeal Board has ruled on the pending appeals.

i flowever, there does not appear to be any reason why the Board should not adopt a discovery plan now, while deferring its implementation until after the conclusion of the appeal process. Accordingly, the Staff urges adoption of a discovery plan, but deferral of its implementation at least until the Appeal Board has ruled on the Staff's and Applicants' appeals.

III. CONCLUSION The Board should adopt Intervenors' Discovery Plan, as modified by the Staff proposals in Attachment A, but should reject CASE's request that the Staff file its responses at the same time as the party whose position it supports. In addition, the Board should defer implementation of the Discovery Plan until the Appeal Board has decided the Staff's and Applicants' appeals.

~

Respectfully submitted,

..  :)

Ge y . B zuno \

Co nse NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of June,1986 9

l

O ATTACHMENT A i

l STAFF'S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT HEARING SCHEDULE I

Day Event 0 Phase I Discovery commences 16 Last date for filing Phase I discovery 35 Phase i Discovery closes 36 Phase II Discovery commences (flote: This provides a 22-day period after Applicants' response to the first portion of Phase I discovery) 71 Phase II Discovery closes 72 A. Phase III Discovery commences (if necessary) 92 A. Phase III Discovery closes 101 B. Request for Admissions /

Proposed Stipulations /

Proposed Summary Disposition Issue Lists are filed, if no Phase III Discovery 121 B. Responses to Admission /

Proposed Stipulation Received, if no Phase III Discovery 122 A. Requests for Admissions Proposed Stipulations Proposed Summary Disposition Issues Lists are filed, if Phase III Discovery occurs; 142 A. Responses to Admission /

Proposed Stipulations Received, if Phase III Discovery occurs 151 B. Summary Disposition Motions are filed, if no Phase III Discovery 1

i 172 A. Summary Disposition Motions are filed, if Phase III Discovery occurs 181 B. Answers to Summary Disposition Motions are filed, if no Phase III Discovery 196 B. Prehearing Conference, if no Phase III Discovery 202 A. Answers to Summary Disposition Motions are filed, if Phase III Discovery occurs 217 A. Prehearing Conference, if Phase III Discovery occurs l

1 i

l 1

l l

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC , ) Docket Nos. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 4th day of June,1986:

Peter B. Bloch, Esq. , Chairman

• Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 I?ashington, DC 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom William A. Horin, Esq.

Administrative Judge Bishop, Liberman, Cook, 1107 West Knapp Purcell & Reynolds Stillwater, OK 74075 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Roy P. Lessy, Jr. , Esq.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Morgan, Lewis & Bockius P.O. Box X, Building 3500 1800 M Street, N.W.

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Suite 700, North Tower Washington, DC 20036 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge Mr. W. G. Counsil 881 W. Outer Drive Executive Vice President i Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Texas Utilities Generating Company )

400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 J

Billie Pirner Garde Dallas, TX 75201 Citizens Clinic Director Government Accountability Project

• 1901 Que Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009 1

i Robert D. Martin William L. Brown, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gil Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Mr. James E. Cummins Worsham, forsythe, Samples Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak

& Wooldridge Steam Electric Station 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75201 P.O. Box 38 Glen Rose, TX 76043 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.

2000 P Street, N.W. , Suite 611 Ropes & Gray Washington, DC 20036 225 Franlin Street Boston, MA 02110 William H. Burchette, Esq.

Mark D. Nozette, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Heron, Burchette, Ruckert Board Panel *

& Rothwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*

Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel

• Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.

Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-4798 L

Ge ry N '

. lizuno y Cu el f NRC Staff

.