ML19260E093
| ML19260E093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130339 | |
| Download: ML19260E093 (4) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G
A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 6
USNRC 4
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Linda Y.
Little FEB 11980> ~-
8 Office of the Secn:!ay
}
In the Matter of
)
E&Mes
"[
)
b 7
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-28 m
g
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE (February.1, 1980)
The staff had estimated that its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) would issue in January 1980.
Tr. 553.
When it became apparent that this date would not be met, the chairman con-sulted with counsel for the NRC staff and was informed tin t the SER will be significantly delayed.
Simultaneously we became aware that some parties are having difficulty in meeting the discovery schedule established in the First Special Pre-hearing Conference Order (p. 66).
It seemed that an extension of tine for discovery could be afforded without causing an overall delay in the proceeding.
Therefore the board con-sidered extending for thirty days the deadline for completing discovery and decided to convene a prehearing conference to discuss a revised schedule for the proceeding.
33]
8002130
Since the licensee is the principal party which could be adversely affected by a delay in the proceeding, the chairman, by telephone, informed counsel for licensee of our thinking so that counsel could object or comment.
Licensee does not object to a thirty day extension for responses to discovery, but ob-jects to any extension of time for submitting discovery requests.
Counsel stated that the persons on the respective staffs of the licensee and NRC who respond to discovery requests are the same persons who prepare respectively the licensee's restart report and the staff's SER.
Thus, in counsel's opinion, the discovery requests have been partly responsible for the delay in the SER and an extended discovery request period would cause further d ela y.
The staff would not object to a 30 day extension for the completion of discovery which extension would not preclude extending the time for discovery requests.
For now the board is acting consistent with licensee's position.
The board extends the deadline for responding to discovery requests from February 16, to March 17, 1980 The deadline for initially making discovery requests, however, will remain for now at February 16.
This means that, notwithstanding the prescribed response times in the discovery rules, responses to discovery requests may be deferred until March 17, but the responding parties are requested to comply with the normal discovery response time limits if possible with ordinary diligence.
. There is a problem with this change however.
It tends to benefit the licensee and staff more than the other parties, although, to some extent, all parties are afforded relief.
Under the present sch'eme of discovery each party could schedule for itself its own discovery sequence, perhaps in two or more rounds of requests.
Under the schedule proposed by licensee, temporarily adopted by the board, intervenors planning to base succeeding rounds of discovery on earlier responses by, say the licensee or staff, are afforded no relief.
Therefore the board will convene a prehearing conference to consider the need for and the timing of an additional round of discovery requests after the February 16 deadline.
The Special Prehearing Conference will begin at 9:00 AM on February 13, 1980 at:
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Hearing Room No. 2, Ground Floor North Office Building, Capitol Complex Commonwealth Avenue and North Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 The staff may defer responding to UCS's motion to compel discovery (dated January 25, 1980) as it rela tes to the timing of UCS's discovery requests until the prehearing conference.
The staff should respond as provided by the rules to UCS's motion as it relates to the propriety of UCS's discovery requests.
O
. At the prehearing conference the board will also consider other scheduling matters, any pending motions, and other items of business as may be appropriate.
This order extending the discovery deadline is on the board's own initiative, but it also disposes of TMIA's motion to extend the time to complete discovery dated January 28, 1980.
No response to TMIA's motion is required.
Although the board expects the prehearing conference to be completed on February 13, the conference room has also been reserved for February 14 and the conference will carry over if necessary.
All part'.es and participating Comaonwealth agencies or their respective counsel are directed to attend.
The clerk to the board will attempt to inform the participants about the conference by telephone.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AhT LICENSING BOARD
/
6<
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland February 1, 1980.
O