ML20236M563

State of Utah Comments on Board 980629 Scheduling Order.* State Requests 14 Days to Respond to Interrogatories,As Provided for in 10CFR2.740b.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20236M563
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	07/07/1998
From:	Chancellor D UTAH, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#398-19302 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9807140128
Download: ML20236M563 (5)

Text

- - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>lh0D I

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'96 JUL 13 A10:34 l

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ORT

'J nF u

W

,,RU r !

. l 2, _

avu At

)

In the Matter of:

)

Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC

)

ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel

)

l Storage Installation)

)

July 7,1998 l

STATE OF UTAH'S COMMENTS ON THE BOARD'S j

JUNE 29,1998, SCHEDULING ORDER i

In response to the Board's Memorandum and Order (General Schedule for i

Proceeding and Associated Guidance), dated June 29,1998, the State of Utah hereby l

submits the following comments.

~

i 1.

If the Staff does not meet the deadlines listed in the schedule appended to the i

Board's June 29 Order, then the deadlines that key off the Staff's deadlines should be extended. For example, the Board's schedule lists the FEIS as due to be issued in September 2000. The end of formal discovery against the Staff is November 1,2000. If j

j the FEIS issues at the end of September, there may be only 30 days formal discovery l

against the Staff. The State requests a full 60 days formal discovery against the Stafi I

relating to the FEIS issues.

2.

Formal discovery ends against all parties, except the Staff, on all three groups of j

i contentions on March 1,1999. There is a substantial amount of time, especially on Group III contentior, between the March 1,1999 discovery cut-off and both the end 9807140128 900707 i

PDR ADOCK 07200022 9

C PDR C

i i

of formal discovery against the Staff and the deadline for filing summary dispositions motions (e.g., 6 months for Group II contentions and 21 months for Group III i

contentions). Thus, an efficient procedural mechanism should be available to re-open l

discovery against all parties. For example, discovery may need to be reopened because after formal discovery cut-off, a party may file supplemental discovery answers and this may raise new or follow up questions; the Applicant may file answers to the Staff's

- Requests for Additional Information, especially with respect to the Environmental i

Report; or the Applicant may file amendments to the application.

l 3.

There is the potential that some of the deadlines may be too burdensome and unrealistic for the parties to meet because of the convergence of obligations.in Groups I, II and Ill. In some instances this will depend on the number and complexity of '

I summary disposition motions. For example, in December 1999, responses to findings of fact are due in Group I, summary dispositions motions are due in Group II and formal discovery against the Staff on DEIS issues ends. Another example, which does not involve summary disposition motions, is formal discovery against the staff on

~ Group II issues ends June 30,1999 and pre-filed testimony on Group I issues is due i

July 1,1999. If the parties cannot comply with the established deadlines because of overlapping demands, then this should be deemed good cause for obtaining an extension of time. In such an instance, a procedure similar to that established in the Board's September 23,1997, Order for extension of time, could be used.

2

4-4.

The Board's shortening of existing periods for discovery provided in the agency's rules of practice to seven days to respond to interrogatories during formal I

discovery is infeasible. Order at 7. It is not unreasonable to expect that most of the

" difficult" questions will be taken up in formal discovery. Furthermore, there will be a need to consult with experts and others before responding to interrogatories. The State requests 14 days to respond to interrogatories, as is provided for in 10 CFR

$2.740b.

DATED this 7th day of July,1998.

Respectful submitted, f

f.

l4A1 8 i

T De9 se' Chancellor, A1Isistant Attorney General Fred G Nelson, Assistant Attorney General Diane Curran, Special Assistant Attorney General Connie Nakahara, Special Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for State of Utah Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South,' 5th Floor, P.O. Box 140873 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0873 Telephone: (801) 366-0286, Fax: (801) 366-0292 l

3 L

L.-___

00CKETED l

USNRC

.g

(

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l

1 hereby certify that copies of STATE OF UTAH'S COMMEM ON ifiE l

BOARD'S JUNE 29,1998, SCHEDULING ORDER were served diHh6 p&ers6nEPl RUL ADJUDiQ a y MK:F listed below by electronic mail (unless otherwise noted) with conformmg copies by l

United States mail first class (unless otherwise noted), this 7th day of July,1998:

l Attn: Docketing & Services Branch Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Secretary of the commission Catherine L. Marco, Esq.

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 016G15 Mail Stop 15 B18 1

11555 Rockville Pike, One White Flint U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

North Washington, DC 20555 l

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 E-Mail: pfscase@nrc. gov I

E-mail: secy@nrc. gov (originaland two copies)

Jay Silberg Ernest L. Blake, Jr. (electronic copy only)

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Citairman Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Administrative Judge 2300 N Street, N. W.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20037-8007 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: Jay _Silberg@shawpittmanrom Washington, DC 20555 E-Mail: crnest_blake@shawpittman.com E-Mail: gpb@nrc. gov Clayton J. Parr, Esq.

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee &

Administrative Judge Loveless Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 11019 Washington, DC 20555 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-0019 E-Mail: jrk2@nrc. gov E-Maib karenj@pwlaw.com Dr. Peter S. Lam John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.

Administrative Judge 1385 Yale Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: john @kennedys.org Washington, DC 20555 E Mail: psl@nrc. gov 4

I i

Richard E. Condit, Esq.

Richard Wilson Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Department of Physics 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Harvard University Boulder, Colorado 80302 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 E-Mail: rcondit@lawfund.org E-mail: wilson @huhepl. harvard.edu Joro Walker, Esq.

James M. Cutchin Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 165 South Main, Suite 1 Panel Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: joro61@inconnect.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-Mail: jmc3@nrc. gov Danny Quintana, Esq.

(electronic copy only)

Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.

50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Office of the Commission Appellate Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Adjudication E-Mail: quintana @xmission.com Mail Stop: 16-G 15 OWFN l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Martin S. Kaufman, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Atlantic Legal Foundation (United States mail,first class only) 205 E. 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 E-mail: atlanticleg@earthlink. net

/

Arn2dl

/

/

De'nise Chancellor Assistant Attorney General l

State of Utah l

l 5

___