ML19260A963
| ML19260A963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1979 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060203 | |
| Download: ML19260A963 (5) | |
Text
4' g&
p 4
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d
8 y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CalTISSION M
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-to In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-250-SP
)
50-251-SP FLORIDA POWER 8s LIGHT COMPANY (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating )
to Permit Steam Generator Units 3 and 4)
}
Repairs)
ORDER RELATIVE TO DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING By order dated August 3, 1979, the Board admitted Mark P.
Oncavage as an Intervenor in this proceeding.
The order recognized the Petitioner's interest may be affected by the proceeding and accepted some of his contentions.
Both the Intervenor and the NRC Staff suggested that the parties meet to consider the possi-bility of reaching agreement or entering into a stipulation.
The parties were also urged to meet as promptly as possible and to also try to agree on a realistic discovery schedule.
The parties met on August 30, 1979, but were unable to.each an agreement on other contentions (contentions revised as of August 30, 1979), and FPL and the Staff had reservations on some of the references in some of the admitted contentions.
Tho parties agreed they would submit their respective positions to the board on September 14, 1979.
FPL and the Intervenor agreed to a tight discovery schedule with the evidentiary hearing commencing on December 4, 1979.
The Staff believed it premature to set dates for the prefiled testimony and the hearing.
(Letter from FPL and motion to adopt schedule, both dated September 4, 1979).
I 1511 001 912060 2
. On September 17 and 18, 1979, the Board received the statements of the parties concerning the contentions.
On September 17, 1979, the Staff responded to FPL's motion to adopt the proposed schedule.
The Staff recited why it could not agree to the schedule.
By Order of September 25, 1979, the Board ruled on all con-tentions, rewording many which were then acceptable and rejecting 1/
The Order also set forth a discovery schedule with a some.
hearing date of January 8, 1960.
The schedule also provided that discovery requests should be submitted no later than October 22, 1979.
Responses to discovery requests were required to be filed by November 30. 1979.
On October 27, 1979, the Intervenor filed a discovery request on FpL.
The Licensee protested on October 31, 1979, that it was
'out-of-time, voluminous and that it would be treated as a " nullity".
The Board's O'rder of November 5, 1979, recites the action to be taken by the Intervenor and FPL flowing from a conference call on November 2, 1979.
The Order required FpL to file a Memorandum relative to its objection to the untimely discovery request and to state which interrogatories it objected to, if any, by Novem-ber 7, 1979.
The Intervenor was asked to respond to these documents 1,/
The Board believes it is appropriate to enlarge on its rejection of Contention ll(c).
The Intervenor challenged the $1,000 per man-rem contained in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Part 20 regulates radiation protection standards for workers and the mandatory value set forth in Part 50 Appendix I does not apply.
See Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants, Units 1 and 2) and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station), ALAB-455, 7 hRC 41 (1978).
1511 002
. by November 13, 1979, but counsel for the Intervenor would not agree to this date, since he could not know in advance the extent
~
of the effort.
The Intervenor was directed to either respond or to establish good cause for a time extension by that date.
The requested documents were received from FPL The memorandum on the late filing of the discovery request stressed that good cause for the filing had not been established and that no attempt was made to seek an extens' ion of time from the Board.
The second document is FPL's response to each interrogatory.
The vast majority of the voluminous requests were rejected for the reasons stated but some were not objected to without waiving the objection to the entire discovery request on late filing.
On November 13, 1979, the Board received from the Intervenor a motion for an extension of time to respond--ten days from receipt of the Board's order ruling on the motion--on the bases that counsel and the Intervenor lack familiarity with the subject matter and counsel is serving pro bono and has therefore time limitations in contrast to the resources of FPL.
The document aleo opposed FPL's
" attempt to preclude" the Intervenor's interrogatories and stated, if reasonable time is not granted, counsel requests leave to with-draw on the basis that the proceeding will be meaningless unless there is sufficient time for preparation.
This Board was led to believe from the initial agreement reached by the parties on discovery that it would proceed in a fairly routine manner.
In our order of September 25, 1979, we urged the parties to make every effort to resolve differences, should they occur, and to take expeditious actions.
While we are 1511 003
. most reluctant to accept a late filing for which no time extension was requested from the Board, we have considered the arguments of FpL and the Intervenor on this matter and have determined that suf-ficient justification has been presented by the Intervenor to rule that the document is acceptable.
We also are aware that counsel for the Intervenor now recognizes the necessity of requesting additional time from the Board if there is a real problem in meeting a due date.
We again remind all parties of their obligation in this res pec t.
This proceeding has developed quite differently from what we had a right to anticipate from the discovery schedule proposed by the parties on September 4, 1979--which incidentally was incomplete because it related only to those contentions accepted by the Board Order of August 3, 1979.
We now agree'with the Staff that it is inappropriate to set dates for the filing of prepared testimony and for the hearing.
Those dates are cancelled.
We are also cancelling November 30, 19'.' 9, as the last day to respond to discovery requests but set 30 days from the date of this order for the response date for S!
discovery requests not in dispute.
2/
The Staff declined to take a position since the matter was between FPL and the Intervenor.
On October 29, 1979, the Appeal Board accepted an untimely brief, albeit reluctantly, from an Intervenor under similar circumstances.
See Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-568, 9 NRC ___ (1979).
3/
The cancellation of these dates has removed the urgency which previously existed for FPL to file its objections to the voluminous interrogatories.
The Board will respond favorably if FPL wishes to supplement its response in a reasonable time.
1511 0['
. We now have before us a motion from the Intervenor for a ti,te extension.
We await the parties' response to that motion in accordance with 10 CFR 62.730.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (N
EliztdethS. Bowers, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of November 1979.
1511 005