ML20199B727

Order Requiring Case to File Proposed Case Litigation Schedule.Served on 860613

ML20199B727
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/12/1986
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
CON-#286-601 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8606170206
Download: ML20199B727 (4)

Text

a

, ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA /* i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 9tISSION[,l' \

Before Administrative Judges: ypJ 138 - .j Peter B. Bloch, Chairman '

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom f Dr. Walter H. Jordan _N " U.

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445-OL 50-446-OL TEXASUTILITIESELECTRICCOMPANY,etal.)

--)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL Units 1 and 2)

June 12, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER .

MEMORANDUM M N (SchedulingofHearings)

The scheduling motion before us was filed by Texas Utilities Electric Company, g al. (Applicants) and contains a suggested schedule keyed to the completion of results reports pursuant to the Comanche Peak Response Team's work schedule. Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) objects to this schedule because it wishes to litigate its own case in its own way and not to be bound by unreviewed scheduling consid-erations reached by Applicants; it also argues, in response to a Board inquiry, that the issues in the case are so interrelated that litigating each results report as it is issued would cause great repetitiveness and would not save any time. The Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission supports Applicants' scheduling ideas.

The competing considerations are speed and fairness. Speed would seem to dictate prompt litigation of each results report as it is 8606170206 860612 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR b

I i

completed. Fairness, however, dictates that CASE not be deprived of the right to control the presentation of its own case in its own way. A reason fairness lies so clearly on CASE's side is that it has already twice prevailed in this proceeding. It prevailed in December 1983 when we found that the Applicants had not sustained the burden of proof with respect to the safety of design of their plant. It prevailed again when Applicants decided to withdraw all of their filings made pursuant to their approved plan by which they were attempting to demonstrate the inadequacy of the Board's findings about design. At this point, proce-dural fairness requires that the side that has twice prevailed have the opportunity to suggest a workable ~ schedule that will give it control over the presentation of its case.

The Board has decided to require CASE to set forth by. June 30 its proposed schedule for trial of this case. The schedule should have the following characteristics: (1) all hearings will be scheduled to be completed by the end of July 1987, (2) written filings should be re-ceived in evidence and substituted for eyewitness or expert testimony whenever feasible, consistent with legitimate needs to contest the credibility of witnesses, and (3) depositions may be taken with advance agreement that all or portions of the depositions stipulated into evidence. We suggest that it should be possible to begin hearings on some subjects by early August 1986. The schedule will be subject to revision for good cause shown, such as later-than-expected completion of results reports, inadequate responses to discovery, inadequate time to complete discovery, etc.

2

)

In preparing its proposed schedule, we encourage CASE to be specif-ic about what issues or portions of issues will be tried, when the record on specific issues will be closed, and at what times it would be appropriate for the Board to decide each portion of the case. CASE is free to suggest the trial of methodological questions, such as adequacy of sampling, in whatever phased fashion seems appropriate. If CASE feels that it can prevail on the question of the adequacy of the CPRT plan, then it may propose a schedule that will pennit the Board to reach a conclusion on that issue before proceeding to more specific technical or hardware issues.

After CASE proposes its schedule, Applicants may respond within ten days and Staff within 15 days. Each may propose a supplementary sched-ule for trying issues not listed in a satisfactory manner in CASE's plan. They may also suggest modifications or, even better, obtain an agreement about modifications. The Board will consider all material filed on scheduling, including those already filed.

All schedule dates are dates on which materials should be delivered to the parties. Board copies may be mailed on those dates, except for the Staff's filing, which should be delivered.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 12th day' of June 1986, 4

e i

o

\

ORDERED:

CASE shall file a proposed case litigation plan pursuant to the parameters discussed in the accompanying memorandum. The other parties may respond as set forth in the same memorandum.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

'/

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland

(

I i

e n i

i .

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