ML17340B130
| ML17340B130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1981 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Oncavage M ONCAVAGE, M. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8105010106 | |
| Download: ML17340B130 (12) | |
Text
,-- Hrf.@~
U.
-I
~~r ~ 30 198) e o ~~R RioVLATOgg, rs coklhllg lofti 4i8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Marshall E.,Miller, Chairman Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris Og
'OOCKergy 6
UslNC APR 3.g/98)
I Office of tt}e $ecret +
Bectlting 5 $@gce Branch 4PR Jg j98~
In the Matter of FLORIDA POHER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4)
Docket No
. 50-250-S (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Repairs)
April 29, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
'Granting Motions for Summary'Disposition, Denying Intervenor's Motion to Continue, and Vacatina Final Prehearin Conference The Staff filed motions for summary disposition of Contentions 2 and 4A on Miarch 23, 1981.
Similar motions were filed by the Applicant as to Contention 5 (April 2), Contention 7 (April 6), and Contentions 3,
6 and 8
(April 8).
On April 22, 1981, counsel for the Intervenor advised the Board by telephone-that the Intervenor "had agreed" to the motions for summary 1/
di'sposition of Contentions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and intended to contest only Counsel were previously admonished by the Board not'to make unilateral or 1/
even conference telephone calls to conduct business on "substantial matters on the telephone",
espec>ially.without a court reporter recording the enti re conversation (Tr. of Prehearing Conference, March 24,
- 1981, pp. 29-30).
The representations made by counsel for Intervenor by telephone and his oral motion to cancel the prehearing conference, noticed for April 27-28, 1981, established'",to consider summary disposition motions and other pending motions; and matters", violated this telephone admonition (Tr. 29-30, 39-40).
No'epetition of this conduct will be expected or permitted
~
~
in. the future.
48'$0
.'>oio s oi o 'I;O.fo S~i
ii J
f 11
~t 1t qi ~>) ',, -.'fige...
Contentions 1, as
- amended, and 4A and B.
Counsel also made an oral motion 2/
by telephone to vacate a prehearing conference noticed for April 27-28, 1981.
The Board has reviewed the unopposed motions for summary disposition filed under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.749 together with their supporting documents, and has concluded that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts as to Contentions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and that the moving parties are entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.
The Intervenor filed a -Motion to Continue or Deny Summary Disposition on April 15, 1981'.
This motion recited that;the'.parties had stipulated to a schedule which "in and of itself" should preclude the Board from 'ruling on any summary disposition motions, and compel a trial on the merits (par. 2).
It was further alleged that the Staff and Applicant had filed eight '(8) motions for summary disposition "knowing full well that discovery would follow" from such motions, and that such tactics would "constitute a
denial of due process of law to the Intervenor" (par'. 3-5).
Apparently the Intervenor's apprehensions in this regard did not materialize.
At any rate, they are now rendered moot by its voluntary decision not to contest or challenge the summary disposition motions as to six (6) of the eight (8) remaining contentions. If this motion is intended 3/
Memorandum and Order cancelirg prehearing conference, dated April 23, 1981.
2/
See also Intervenor's Statement Agreeing to Entry of Summary Disposition
'rder, dated April 23, 1981.
Contention 14 as originally numbered was not contested by the Intervenor on the Staff's earlier motion for summary disposition, and it was dismis-sed in our Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order entered April 2, 1981, at pp. 5-6.
li
~0
to remain viable as to Contentions 1 and 4 (a matter not covered in counsel's telephonic motion dis'cussed ~su'a,
- p. l, footnote 1), it will be denied.
These contentions
.have been"pending for some time and the Intervenor has had ample time to prepare its evidentiary case to support its pl.eadings.
Any additional data derived from the site -inspection on April 19. 1981, can
, be added as a supplement
.to Intervenor.'s responses to summary disposition motions.
The Board has repeatedly admonished the parties to conduct their discovery expeditiously in order not to "interfere with the established trial schedule."-
On April 14, 1981, the Intervenor served his "Request for the Production of Documents from Licensee, Florida Power and Light Company."
On April 15, Intervenor served his "Request to Produce Documents from Licensee, Florida Power and Light Company."
Also on April 15, the Intervenor served his "Request to Produce Documents from the Staff of Florida Power and Light Company."
As to this last request, Intervenor's counsel has informed the Applicant that this request is actually meant to be directed to the NRC Staff.-'/
The Staff filed a response to the Intervenor's motion for continuance on April 21, 1981, pointing out that even if the requested documents were necessary to answer summary disposition motions, they should have been requested earlier to permit timely answers.
The Staff's motions regarding
-'emorandum and Order entered April 7, 1981; Memorandum and Order entered 4,/
April 2, 1981.
Licensee's
Response
to Intervenor's Discovery Requests, filed April 22, 1981.
i go
Contentions 2 and 4A were served on March 23, and answers were due on April 17.
However, it was not"until April 15 that the Intervenor filed a request for production of certain documents, some of which had been referenced in the SER (NUREG-0756) issued in December, 1'980.
The Staff stated that it intends to.provide the requested documents, before the answers are due (NRC Staff Response, etc. filed April 21, 1981, pp. 2-3).
It was noted that in granting the Interven'or's first extension
- request, the Board admonished it to "start preparing its answers promptly and not wait for the completion of the site inspection."-
The Staff further correctly-
.6/
observed that the Intervenor has not yet adduced any evidence or demonstrated any evidentiary basis to support any of his contentions.
The Applicant filed a response to the Intervenor's motion to continue or deny summary disposition on April 20, 1981.
(Although th certificate of service indicates that this response was served by hand or courier on counsel for Intervenor on April 20, apparently neither the pending motion nor this response was adverted to in counsel's telephonic, oral motion for a continuance on April 22, discussed
~su ra, p. I, footnote I). It was stated that discovery on the admitted contentions comenced on September 25,
- 1979, and the Intervenor thus has had 18 months in which to obtain discovery.
The Board had urged expeditious discovery in view of the stipulated
'I schedule,.
and the Staff and Applicant had complied with this admonition by filing their motions prior to the filing deadline.
Table 1 attached to the Applicant's response purported to demonstrate that the Intervenor had been
-'emorandum and Order entered April 7, 1981.
6/
0 c.Y
aware for more than six months of all but three of the documents now requested.
It was urged that "the Interve0or. has filed discovery at the last possible p
moment in an attempt to utilize discovery as a means of delaying the proceed-ing and avoiding the responsibility of filing a response to the motions for summary dispositiorl'Licensee's
- Response,
- p. 5).
On April 22, 1981, the Applicant filed its discovery statement which in effect agreed, with one exception, to produce the documents requested by the Intervenor.
A large number of materials were transmitted by it on April 22 to counsel for Intervenor in response'o the April 14 and April 15 requests.
The Staff by letter dated April 24, 1981, transmitted requested documents in its possession.
It thus appears that, in spite of.its'.failune to make seasonable discovery requests, the Intervenor has had ample opportunity for discovery and in fact has been supplied with.very substantial'iscovery information and document production.
There is no reasonable basis for the Intervenor's Motion to Continue or Dehy Summary Disposition, and accordingly, it will be denied.
In view of the elimination of seven out of nine contentions as described
- above, there appears to be no necessity to hold a final prehearing conference on May. 21-22, as previously scheduled.
There are pending motions for summary disposition of Contentions 1, as
- amended, and 4A and B.
The Board will rule on these motions after answers have been filed, in accordance with.
the provisions of 10 CFR 52.749.
If a final prehearing conference is deemed'o be necessary, it can be held the day preceding the commencement of an evidentiary hearing.
15
For al-1 the foregoing reasons and based upon.a consideration of the entire record in this matter, vt is this 29th day of April, 1981 ORDERED 1.
That motions for summary disposition are granted as to 'Contentions 2,.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and said contentions are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
2.
That Intervenor Nark P. Oncavage's Motion to Continue or Deny Summary Disposition is denied.
3.
That the Final Prehearing Conference previously scheduled for Yiay 21-22, 1981, at Homestead,'lorida, is vacated.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Marshall E. Miller ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
I+I t
~.- eJa