ML20237E197

Memorandum & Order (Denying Time Extension Motion & Scheduling Prehearing Conference).* Orders That Natl Whistleblower Ctr 980821 Motion for Extension of Time Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980827

ML20237E197
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	08/27/1998
From:	Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER CENTER
References
CON-#398-19464 98-749-01-LR, 98-749-1-LR, LR, NUDOCS 9808310028
Download: ML20237E197 (7)

Text

_ - ____ - -____-_-_ _ _ _ _ - - _

b DI

~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

% AUG 27 P1 :37 Before Administrative Judges:

OFFICE +m  ; ' yay G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman RULi>A d o;inND Dr. Jerry R. Kline ADJUD!CA E:N5 UTAFF Thomas D. Murphy In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-317-LR 50-318-LR BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 98-749-01-LR (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2) August 27, 1998 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Time Extension Motion and Scheduling Prehearing Conference)

By motion-filed August 21, 1998, petitioner National Whistleblower Center (NWC) seeks revision of the Board's August 20, 1998 initial prehearing order as it (1).

established a September 11, 1998 deadline for filiag any supplement to its intervention petition; and (2) proposed holding an initial prehearing conference the week of October 13, 1998. See Petitioner's Motion for Enlargement of Time (Aug. 21, 1998) [ hereinafter NWC Extension Motion).

Petitioner seeks to move the prehearing conference back to L at least December 1, 1998, and asserts its purported right, under 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(3), to file petition supplements

up to fifteen days prior to the initial prehearing

' conference. In submissions filed August 24 and August 26, 9808310028 980827  ?

PDR ADOCK 05000317 i g50 N L_ _ _ _ _______-_____ _.

5 1998, respectively, applicant Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) and the NRC staff oppose the NWC extension request.

For the reasons given below, we deny the motion. In addition, based on the responses from the participants relative to our proposed initial prehearing conference date, we establish a schedule for that prehearing conference.

I. NWC Extension Motion Central to NWC's extension request is its asserted inability within the Board-established time frame to complete its efforts to retain " eminent experts" to review the BG&E license renewal application and have those experts provide it with the necessary technical input to frame its contentions. NWC Extension Motion at 1-2. Its unspoken premise for this argument is that for this and other agency i licensing proceedings, the " starter's pistol" for application review and contention formulation does not sound until a petitioner's hearing request is filed. It is mistaken. As both BG&E and the staff point out, the application in question has been publically available since late April 1998, some fcur months ago, ar. which time the public, including NWC, was advised that a hearing could be l

offered on the application. See 63 Fed. Reg. 20,663, 20,664 i

(1998). NWC has not made any showing as to why, in light of  ;

s l '.

1

this extended period during which the BG&E application was available, it is unable to complete its contention composition efforts by the September 11 deadline. Thus, its expert-review claim does not provide the requisite

" unavoidable and extreme circumstances" that warrant an extension. CLI-98-14, 48 NRC , (slip op. at 6)

(Aug. 19, 1998).

As a basis for its extension request, NWC also proffers the " voluminous and complex" nature of the application and the fact this is the "first" power reactor license renewal proceeding. NWC Extension Motion at 3. The three-volume application, while not light reading, clearly has a much more limited scope compared to initial license applications for power reactors and other facilities. Moreover, while l NWC has asserted repeatedly that its contentions will present complex and novel issues, neither its intervention petition nor its extension motion presant a single example of what those would be. Again, we are unable to find that NWC has met its burden to establish the requisite  !

1 l

" unavoidable and extreme circumstances" to warrant an ]

l extension.

! Finally, we find no basis for NWC's assertion that )

i I

l section 2.714 (a) (3) provides an absolute right to file I

contentions up to fifteen days before the initial prehearing conference. As the staff points out, this provision sets an l

l

O automatic outside limit for the filing of contentions, but only in the absence of licensing board action in accordance with its 10 C.F.R. SS 2.711(a), 2.718 authority to regulate the proceeding by, among other things, setting schedules.

In this instance, exercising that recognized authority, see Houston Lichtina and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-574, 11 NRC 7, 12-13 (1980), consistent with the Commission's scheduling guidance i

we have established a deadline for filing intervention petition supplements that is not tied to the prehearing conference schedule. And, as we noted in our initial prehearing order, contentions submitted after that date will be considered late-filed.

II. Initial Prehearing Conference Schedule In our initial prehearing order, we asked the parties to advise us "immediately" of any conflicts relative to conducting a prehearing conference the week of October 13, 1998. Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Order) (Aug. 20, 1998) at 4 (unpublished).

Taking into account the responses of counsel, we will I convene a prehearing conference in this proceeding beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 15, 1998, in the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board Panel Hearina Room, Room T-3B45, Third Floor, Two White Flint North Buildina, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Although the prehearing conference will continue until completed, the Board currently anticipates it should take no more than two days.

In this connection, we note that BG&E has suggested we consider the issue of petitioner's standing on a more expedited basis, separate from the question of contention admissibility. Sag [BG&E] Answer to Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing of [NWC] (Aug. 24, 1998) at 11-12.

Given the already expedited schedule in this proceeding, the efficiencies of this approach are not altogether apparent.

Thus, at the prehearing conference we will entertain arguments on (1) the issue of standing, based on the information in the petitioner's August 7, 1998 hearing request / intervention petition and any additional information NWC supplies in conjunction with its petition supplement; and (2) the admissibility of NWC's proffered contentions.

For the foregoing reasons, it is this twenty-seventh day of August 1998, ORDERED, that:

1. Petitioner NWC's August 21, 1998 motion for extension of time is denied.

)1 l

l l

L________________-.-------_.

2. An initial prehearing conference will be held in this proceeding in accordance with the provisions of section II above.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD *

/ .JL b.t G. Paul Bollwe'rk, III ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland August 27, 1998 l

l l

f-

• Copies of this memorandum and order were sent this date to counsel for applicant BG&E and to counsel for petitioner NWC by Internet e-mail transmission; and to counsel for the staff by e-mail through the agency's wide area network system.

I

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-317/318-LR (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O DENY'G TIME EXT. MOTION have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judge Office of Comission Appellate G. Paul Bo11werk, III Adjudication Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Robert M. Weisman, Esq. ' ~

Marian L. Zobler, Esq. Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel National Whistleblower Legal Defense Mail Stop 15 B1B and Education Fund U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3233 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20007 David R. Lewis, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

. Dated at Rockville, Md. this 27 day of August 1998 Office of the Secretaty of th W ommission