ML19318B472
| ML19318B472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006260203 | |
| Download: ML19318B472 (8) | |
Text
, _.
t 06/24/80 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 70-1308 (GE fiorris Operatiun Spent Fuel l
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND STAFF'S SUGGESTED REVISED SCHEDULE FOR DISCOVERY INTRODUCTION On June 12, 1980, the State of Illinois, which is participating in this proceeding as an Intervenor and as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715(c), filed a " Motion For Extension of Time."
In this motion, Illinois requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board)
"to extend the period to complete the First Round of Discovery Requests until July 30, 1980 or until 30 days af ter receipt of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), whichever date is later."
Illinois also " moves the Board to extend the corresponding dates to file objections and answers to provide a minimum of fourteen days from the final filing of discovery requests to make objections and a minimum of 60 days from the last date to file discovery requests for completion of answers."1]
If On June 4,1980, the Licensing Board issued an " Order Establishing Schedule for Discovery," (Order) "after considering the proposed schedule for discovery suggested by the Staff and the Applicant."
Under this schedule.
(F0OTNOTE CONTINUED) 8006260203
In support of its motion, Illinois cites:
- 1) the absence of the Staff's SER, 2) the extreme short notice of the discovery completion date and 3) a conflict in the schedules of the attorneys representing Illinois in this proceeding.
For the rea;ons set forth below, the Staff supports, in part, Illinois' motion and urges the Licensing Board to revise the discovery schedule established by the Licensing Board's Order of June 4,1980.
DISCUSSION At the prehearing conference held on February 29, 1980, the Licensing Board invited the parties to provide suggestions regarding discovery (Tr. 141-142).
In response to the Licensing Board's invitation, the Staff suggested a proposed schedule for discovery.
See "NRC Staff Response to Second Set of Amended Contentions of the State of Illinois," April 4,1980 and "NRC Staff Response to Re-Amended Contentions of Rorem, y M.", April 4,1980. The Staff's proposed schedule called for completion of first round discovery (CONTINUED) 1.
All requests for discovery are to be served on the parties from whom discovery is requested on or before June 30, 1980.
2.
Objections to all requests for discovery are to be served on or before July 11, 1980.
3.
Answers to all requests for discovery to which no objections are raised are to be served on the requesting party on or before July 18, 1980.
4.
Dates for filing Motions for Summary Disposition and replies thereto will be established by the Board as discovery progresses but will follow promptly the completion of discovery.
requests by June 30, 1980.
Applicants provided comments on a. discovery schedule, stating that:
Since the State did not indicate its discovery plans, as requested by the Board, General Electric's ability to predict the needed period for discovery is limited.
At the present time, General Electric would anticipate serving a set of interrogatories upon the other parties to this proceeding and taking only the addi-tional discovery precipitated by the responses to those interroga-covery in a period of 30 to 45 days pt it could complete its dis-tories.
General Electric believes t At the time the Staff proposed a discovery schedule, the Staff anticipated that the Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) would be issued on April 30 and May 30, 1980, respectively.
The Staff's schedule also contemplated a ruling by the Licensing Board on admissibility of contentions by May 30, 1980.
Thus, there would have been a sixty-day period after issuance of the EIA and a thirty-day period after the Licensing Board's ruling on contentions and issuance of the Staff's SER for completion of discovery requests.
For the reasons stated in its letter to the Licensing Board of May 5,1980, the Staff was unable to issue the EIA on April 30. The EIA was subsequently issued on June 5,1980 and was transmitted to the Licensing Board and the parties under cover of a letter of that date. The delay in issuance of the EIA and additional obligations of the personnel responsible for review and 2/
See " Response of General Electric Company to The People of The State of Illinois' Second Set of Amended Contentions and Motion to Stay Proceeding," April 4, 1980.
- r..
issuance of the EIA has also delayed completion and issuance of the SER.
The Staff now anticipates that the SER will be completed on August 15, 1980.3/
The NRC Staff believes that good cause exists for extension of the discovery schedule.
First of all, in the Licensing Board's " Order Ruling on Conten-tions of the Parties," June 4,1980, the Licensing Board admitted a number of contentions as issues in controversy in this proceeding.
In its Order, the Licensing Board combined some of the contentions and reformulated others.
The Staff believes that an extension of the discovery schedule is necessary in order to allow sufficient time for the parties to analyze the contentions, j
as accepted by the Licensing Board, and to prepare their discovery requests.
In addition, Illinois states in its motion that it did not receive the Staff's EIA until June 9,1980 and the Licensing Board's Orders ruling on ccatentions and establishing the discovery schedule until June 10, 1980.
Thus, Illinois notes that there is less than a 30-day period from receipt of those documents to cunplete discovery requests.
Illinois correctly points out that under the discovery schedule proposed by the Staff, there would be 60 days and 30 days respectively, after issuance of the EIA and the Licensing Board's Orders to formulate discovery requests. The Staff agrees with Illinois that the twenty-day period from actual receipt of the EIA and the
_3]
Upon completion and issuance of the SER, copies will be distributed to the Licensing Board and.the parties to this proceeding.
Licensing Board's Orders is not sufficient for Illinois or the other parties to formulate their discovery requests.
As additional grounds in support of its motion for extension of the discovery schedule, Illinois cites the obligations of two of the attorneys representing Illinois with respect to other cases and the unavailability of another attorney due to an extended leave of absence.
The Staff believes that this factor, given the fact that Illinois had no finn knowledge when discovery would take place and therefore could not plan for accomplishing it, also weighs in favor of an extension in the discovery schedule.
For tne reasons stated above, the Staff agrees with Illinois that the dis-covery schedule established by the Licensing Board should be extended.
Illinois proposes that the date for completion of first round discovery requests should be delayed until July 30, 1980, or until 30 days after receipt of the Staff's SER, whichever is later.
The Staff believes the discovery schedule established by the Licensing Board should be extended to allow for completion of all discovery requests on all contentions by July 30, 1980. The NRC Staff also recognizes that the delay in issuance of the Staff's SER necessarily results in the need for an extension in the discovery schedule on that document as to matters relating to admitted contentions.
The discovery schedule ad:pted by the Licensing Board was based on the Staff's estimate that the SER would be issued by May 30, 1980. As stated above, the Staff now anticipates issuance of the SER on August 15, 1980.
The Staff believes that the discovery period should be further extended to
provide that discovery for all parties on matters relating to admitted contentions discussed in the SER be penaitted for a 30-day period after issuance of the SER.
However, the Staff does not agree with Illinois that a 60-day period from the date of completion of discovery requests is required for the filing of answers.
Rather, the Staff believes that answers should be required on all discovery filed July 30 by answers placed in the mail by September 5.
This would afford the parties 30 calendar days for preparing responses assuming 5 days for mail transit time. Accordingly, the Staff proposes the following revised discovery schedule:
I.
Completion of All Discovery Requests - July 30 II. Objections to Discovery Requests - August 12 III. Issuance of Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) - August 15 IV. Answers to July 30 Discovery Requests - September 5 V.
Completion of Discovery Requests on SER Relating to Admitted Contentions - September 16 VI. Objections to Discovery Requests on SER - September 29 VII. Answers to Discovery Requests on SER - October 16 The Staff believes that this schedule provides a sufficient period for completion of discovery requests, taking into account the delay in issuance of the Staff's EIA and SER and the other factors enumerated above.
In the Staff's view, this schedule would relieve the burdens which would be imposed by the discovery schedule adopted by the Licensing Board.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff urges that the Licensing Board grant, in part, Illinios' motion for an extension in the discovery schedule and adopt the revised schedule for discovery proposed by the Staff above.
Respectfully submitted, 0
4 My,
2" 4ar~ rie Ulma RotSc id Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of June,1980 4
Y e
+_c.
__w..
w_,
y q
, - _...g
,m 3
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION Of TIME AND STAFF'S SUGGESTED REVISED SCHEDULE FOR DISCOVERY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of June, 1980:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Edward Firestone, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal Operation
'3320 Estelle Terrace General Electric Company Wheaton, MD 20906 175 Curtner Avenue Mail Code 822 Dr. Linda W. Little San Jose, CA 95125 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Everett Jay Quigley R.R. 1 Box 378 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Kankakee, IL 60901 305 East Hamilton Avenue State College, PA 16801 Mrs. Elaine Walsh 33 Pheasant Trail Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Wilmington, IL 60481 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 188 West Randolph Street Panel
- Suite 2315 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, IL 60601 Washington, DC 20555 Ronald Szwajkowski, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Panel (5)*
Mayer, Brown & Platt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 231 South LaSalle Street Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60604 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Office of the Secretary Essex, IL' 60935 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 L li K %
Jos b K. Gray Co nseY for NRC aff