ML20205M771
| ML20205M771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1986 |
| From: | Chandler L, Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-745 OL, NUDOCS 8604150371 | |
| Download: ML20205M771 (9) | |
Text
.
~
i April 10, 1986 DOCKETED USNPC a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 APR "4 P111 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS :NG BdAPD l
GFFic:.
In the Matter of
)
- d.' '
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 l
~~
)
50-446 COMPANY, et al.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
i l
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHEDULE I.
Introduction On Mar.ch 21, 1986, Applicants filed a " Motion for Establishment of Schedule"
(" Applicants' Motion").
Attached to Applicants' Motion is a 1
proposed "self executing" schedule for litigating the CPRT Results l
P.eports.
The NRC Staff hereby responds to Applicants' Motion.
II.
Background
i On June 28, 1985, the Applicants filed their " Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of All Issues" in the lleensing hearings, which proposed that the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan be litigated first,
and the implementation of the CPRT be litigated separately.
Both the Staff and Intervenor CASE filed responses to the Applicants' management plan.
On August 30, 1985, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order which declined to adopt the Applicants' proposal to litigate the CPRT prior to the implementation of the CPRT Program Plan.
8604150371 860410 DR ADOCK 0500 5
I5 07
Applicants now indicate that the Senior Review Team (SRT) of the CPRT has approved Result Reports for a number of Issue-Specific Action Plans ("IS APs"), and that the SRT is expected to approve additional Results Reports in the future. Applicants' Motion, p.1.
l III.
Discussion In general, Applicants' suggested sequence of events leading to a resumption of the hearings represents, in the Staff's view, a reasonable approach for litigating the CDP.T.
The specific time periods allocated by the Applicants for each milestone, however, reflect highly ambitious objectives for the completion of discovery, the evaluation of discovery responses, CASE's determination of whether it wishes to contest the conclusion of the Results Reports, etc.
And, moreover, while the Staff's inspection, audit and evaluation activities regarding individual ISAPs and DSAPs 1 are ongoing and it is the Staff's objective to complete its activities in a timeframe compatible with the proposed schedule, the actual length of time needed to complete its review of the various Results l
Reports will depend on the complexity of the subject and the adequacy of l,
the information provided.
Thus, some flexibility in scheduling is l
required in order to accommodate the time necessary for evaluation of the l
Results Reports.
Accordingly, although the Staff concurs with 1/
The Staff notes that the Applicants' proposed schedule does not explicitly address DSAPs.
Although the proposed schedule appears to provide a workable scheduling framework for DSAPs as well as IS APs, given the nature and scope of the DSAPs, adjustments to particular time periods provided in the schedule may be warranted in connection with the litigation of DSAP Results Reports.
O l
Applicants' proposal that the general sequence of events in its proposed schedule be adopted by the Board, the Staff has developed an alternative i
schedule (Attachment A), which provides what the Staff believes to be more reasonable (although still optimistic) time periods for each milestone.
1 First, the Staff proposes that all Results Reports be hand-delivered on Day 0 to CASE and Staff counsel, and to the Chairman of the Licensing Board. b Iland delivery would render more meaningful the Applicants' proposed start of discovery on Day 1.
With respect to discovery, it should be noted that, unlike the Applicants's proposed schedule, the Staff is proposing that discovery by CASE of the Applicants only commence on Day 1; discovery by CASE of i
the Staff would commence on Day 45 upon the issuance of the Staff's evaluation addressing any given Results Report.
In this way, the Staff will be able to complete its efforts without the disruptive burdens imposed by discovery, much as the Applicants were permitted to complete the CPRT efforts without the encumbrance of in-process discovery.
In any event, Staff documents are already being placed in the established public 3
document roons without the need to request them by discovery.
On Day 30, the Staff proposes that it inform the Board and parties of its ability to file its evaluation of the Results Report on Day 45.
While, as noted above, it is the Staff's intention to complete its efforts in a timeframe compatible with the proposed schedule, if the Staff is unable to meet the Day 45 deadline, it would indicate what date it could meet:
-2/
For purposes of the Results Reports served by the Applicants before adoption of a schedule bv the Board, Day 0 should be set consistent with the date on which the schedule is actually adopted.
1
the remainder of the schedule would be adjusted accordingly.
The Staff notes that its ability to meet the Day 45 deadline may be affected if multiple Results Reports are filed simultaneously or by the filing of one or more Results Reports addressing the more significant issues such as piping and supports and design.
Applicants propose that on Day 31, they file their testimony on a given Results Report and, on Day 45, the Staff files its " testimony."
It is unclear why any testimony needs to be filed by Applicants or Staff at these times since it would not be until Day 62 that CASE gives notice of its intent to contest the Report.
It is the Staff's view that until CASE gives such notice, the matter is uncontested.
Therefore, the Staff has deleted the ' Day 31 event calling for filing of Applicants' testimony, and modifies the Day 45 reference to call for filing of the Staff's evaluation j
addressing the Results Report.
The Staff has added a milestone on Day 72 which provides for the filing of supplemental testimony by the Applicants and Staff, if found necessary as a result of CASE's notification, on Day 62, of its intent to contest a given Results Report.
l Also on that day, CASE files any direct testimony consistent with its Day 62 notice.
The Staff has slightly modified the Applicants' proposal for a supplemental discovery period against CASE, provided on Day 72.
Under Applicants' approach, the actual period for discovery could be as short as 8 days, depending on the means of service of direct testimony employed by CASE.
The Staff's approach, which appears on Day 74, allows for a full 10 days of discovery.
6 Finally, to provide a period for the preparation of testimony after the completion of discovery, the Staff's proposed schedule calls for the filing of rebuttal testimony, if any, by the Applicants and Staff on l
Day 94.
l IV.
Conclusion The Board should adopt the Applicants' schedule, as modified by the Staff's proposals set forth above.
Respectfully submitted, Geary.
Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff
//////
Lawrence J. Chandler Special Litigation Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of April,1980
1 ATTACHMENT A STAFF'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE Day Event 0
Receipt of Applicants' notice of approval and publication by the SP.T of the Results Report, together with a copy of the Results Report and statement of the availability of the CPRT Working Files for the ISAP covered thereby.
1 Discovery opens on the Results Report between CASE and Applicants.
30 Staff serves notice of ability to address Results Report on Day 45 or of alternate date.
45 Staff files evaluation addressing Results Report.
Discovery opens between CASE and Staff.
61 Discovery completed among all parties.
62 CASE serves notice of whether it wishes to contest the conclusions of the Results Report.
If not, then the matters covered by the Results Report shall be deemed uncontested.
If CASE states that it does wish to contest the conclusions of the Renults R 3 p ort,
CASE shall also state v+cther such contest will be conducted solely by cross-examination or will include a direct case.
72 If CASE states that it wishes to rely only on cross-examination, Applicants and Staff file any necessary supplemental testimony and the Board establishes hearing date(s) at earliest time convenient to the Board and parties for cross-examination (and any necessary redirect testimony).
If CASE states that it will present a direct
- case, CASE files its proposed direct testimony with respect to the Results Report.
I
i l
l,
l 74 A ten-day period for Applicants and Staff to conduct discovery with respect to CASE's l
direct testimony opens.
94 Rebuttal testimony, if
- any, filed by Applicants and Staff.
Board establishes hearing schedule at earliest time convenient to the Board and parties.
l i
l
[
i 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPflSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et _al.
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CEP"'"'ICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS'
)
MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHEDULE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of April,1986:
Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street II.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 i
Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Jud e Environmental Protection Division F
Dean, Division of Engineering P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Architecture and Technology Austin, TX 78711 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK, 74078 Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esq.
William A. Horin, Esq.
Elizabeth B. Johnson Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Administrative Judge Purcell a Reynolds Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1200 17th Street, N.W.
P.O. Box X Building 3500 Washington, DC 20036 Oak Ridge TN 37830 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
l l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Isham, Lincoln & Beale l
Administrative Judge Suite 840 l
881 W. Outer Drive 1120 Connecticut Avenue i
Oak Ridge TN 37830 Washington, DC 20036 E
Billie Pirner Garde Mr. W. G. Counsil l
Citizens Clinic Director Executive Vice President j
l Government Accountability Project Texas Utilities Generating Company 1901 Que Street, N.W.
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Washington, DC 20009 Dallas, TX 75201 l
Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.*
William L. Brown, Esq.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Lanny Alan Sinkin j
Worsham, Forsythe, Samples Christic Institute 1
& Wooldridge 1324 North Capitol Street 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Washington, DC 20002 Dallas, TX 75201 James T. McGaughy Southern Engineering Co. of Georgia Mr. James E. Cummins 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Atlanta, GA 30367-8301 Steam Electric Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
P.O. Box 38 Panel
- Glen Rose, TX 76043 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
Willian II. Burchette, Esq.
Mark D. Nozette Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal fieron, Burchette, Ruckert Board Panel
- a Rothwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Robert D. Martin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gil Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.
Morgan, Lewis a Bocklus Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Spiegel & McDiarmid Suite 700, North Tower 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20005-4708 j
Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
j Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 225 Franklin Street 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 2003G h
~_
Gefry S M uno L
Cohnsel NRC Staff 1
-