ML19318A783
| ML19318A783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1980 |
| From: | Rooney M, Szwajkowski R GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., MAYER, BROWN & PLATT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006240148 | |
| Download: ML19318A783 (5) | |
Text
_.
C
'0 Dated:
Jun'e 18, 19_G 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
//
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j'e, Of
%N4 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g M
C In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-3308
)
(Renewal of SNH-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel )
Storage Facility)
)
MEMORANDUM OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME General Electric Company
(" General Electric"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.730(c), submits this Memorandum In Opposition To The State Of Illinois Motion For Extension Of Time.
By"its latest motion, the State has, yet again, reaffirmed its commitment to delay the renewal of General Electric's Special Nuclear Materials License for as long as possible, without regard to the overriding public interest in the timely consideration of the issues raised in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the State's motion should be denied and the State should be directed to proceed with discovery under the schedule established by the Board.
The State Has Declined To Attempt To Comply With The Discovery Schedule Established By The Board Admittedly, the discovery schedule established by the
)
Board's Order of June 4, 1980 is an ambitious one, the maintenance
'l 8 006240l%
C l
cf which will' require the determined effort of all parties.
General Electric is prepared to make such an effort and expects the other parties to do likewise.
For that reason, the State's motion is both disappointing and surprising.
'At the February 29, 1980 Prehearing Conference, the Board sought the parties' views on a schedule for discovery.
The State responded as follows:
"We would like to start discovery j
tomorrow from the Applicant and the Staff."
" Alternatively, we would like discovery at the first available instance."
(2/29/80 Tr. p. 139).
Having had nore than three months since making those state-ments to consider its discovery plans, the State has prematurely decided that the schedule established by the Board is so unreasonable that any attempt to maintain it would be futile.
In General Electric's view, the established schedule should not be abandoned unless and until the determined, good faith efforts of the parties have proven that the established schedule cannot be maintained.
General Electric submits that, having intervened in this proceeding, the State should be directed to expend its efforts in the advancement of the proceeding -- not its delay -- even if that requires the allocation of additional resources by the Attorney General's office.
The State's Reasons To Delay Discovery Are Insufficient To support its motion to delay discovery, the State relies on three specific reasons, which, as discussed below, are both c.
a individually and collectively insufficient.
For its first reason, the State relies on the proposed schedule submitted by the Staff */
and the underlying intent The Sta'e argues that the of the Staff as presumed by the State.
t Board's schedule would allow the State only 20 days "to review
~
the record, the EIS and other available documents. "
(State's Motion, p. 2.)
The State, however, ignores the fact that, except for the SER and EIA, the State has had access to the record and other available documents for the intervening months, certainly a period sufficient to prepare discovery requests.
Should the subsequent issuance of the SER raise new areas for discovery, the State, by appropriate motion, can seek additional discovery at that time.
For its second reason, the State urges its unilateral misunderstanding.of General Electric's statement that "it could complete its discovery in a period of 30 to 45 days."
(General 4
Electric memorandum, p. 37, dated April 4, 1980).
Suffice it to say that, when General Electric stated its belief that it could
" complete" its discovery ir. a period of 30 to 45 days, it did not mean " commence".
The State 's understanding is simply wrong.
For its final reason, the State urges the schedule conflict of two attorneys in the Attorney General's office.
General Electric is not in a position to comment substantively upon the lists of
-*/
At the February 29, 1980 Prehearing Conference, the Board invited the parties to submit proposed discovery schedules.
Although the Staff and General Electric submitted such propo'als, the State and the Rorem intervenors did not.
s i
conflicting attorneys commitments set forth in the State's motion.
General Electric submits that all counsel h' ave other commitments in other litigation which must be met.
The State has not identified any reason that this proceeding should be accorded any less priority or effort than the other proceedings in which the State is involved.
Absent such showing, the schedule established by the Board should not so easily be abandoned.
Conclusion General Electric acknowledges the ' ambitious nature of the Board's schedule.
General Electric, however, is compelled to voice its strenuous objection to the State's motion which cavalierly seeks.to set aside the Board's schedule without any showing of a good faith effort to maintain it.
The Board and the other parties to this proceeding are entitled to more. ~ For the above reasons, General Electric respectfully submits that the State's motion should be denied forthwith to assure that the State devote its efforts between now and June 30 in the preparation of its discovery requests.
Respectfully submitted, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
/
By:
f**fp
/<n,b. -)
~
f Ronald W.
S zwa'j!,kowski j
A/q I/ 1 19 l Y fJ h & l) ')J$.(?!?Y Dated:
June 18, 1980 Matthew A.
Rooney OF COUNSEL:
MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 231 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 782-0600 t
g..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
Consideration of Renewal of
)
Materials License No. SNM-1265 )
Issued to GE Morris Operation
)
Fuel Storage Installation
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a copy of the MEMORANDUM OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY IN OPPO-SITION TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, in the above-captioned proceeding on the following persons by causing the said copies to be deposited in the United States mail at 231 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, in plainly addressed and sealed envelopes with proper first class postage attached before 5:00 P.M. on June 18, 1980:
- /
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Susan N.
Sekuler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George William Wolff, Esq.
3320 Estelle Terrace Office of the Attorney General Wheaton, Maryland 20906 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 e/
Dr. Linda W. Little Chicago, Illinois 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5000 Hermitage Drive Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Dr. Forrest J. Remick Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 305 East Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C.
20555 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/. / f Bridget L. Rorem Washington, D.C.
20555
/
/
Essex,' Illinois 60935 Everett J.-Quigley g,k j.
[bl Ronald W.'S wa ws hankakee 11 ois 60901
- /
Copy sent_by Federal Express.
.