ML19340D345
| ML19340D345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1980 |
| From: | Hiestand O DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300368 | |
| Download: ML19340D345 (5) | |
Text
,
t, i
',\\
e f
r
~
~
iy C'.
,1 p_.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA P
r-
\\n '
, K. ll
- 'f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N.
W j'
N v
v
' Q,'
In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
(Liquefaction (La Crosse Boiling Water
)
Show Cause)
Reactor)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO CREC MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND CREC MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland or DPC), the holder of Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) and the licensee in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby submits its response in opposition to the motion for an extension of time in which to file a motion to compel discovery submitted by the Coulee Region Energy Coalition (CREC) on November 21, 1980, and the actual motion to compel discovery which accompanied the motion for an extension of time, as follows:
In its Motion to Compel Discovery, CREC seeks an order from the Board compelling Dairyland and the NRC Staff to respond to certain of Consolidated Intervenors' interrogatories, dated October 2,1980, to which Dairyland and the Staff objected in their respective responses to these interrogatories, dated October 27, 1980.
Under the most liberal interpretation of the NRC Rules of 3goS sg 280 SQ G
i
-2 Practice, such a motion to compel was required to be filed no later than November 11, 1980.
See 10 C.F.R. $$ 2.740(f) and 2.710.
Nevertheless, in its Motion For An Extension of Time, CREC lamely asserts that it should be granted a two week extension within which to file this motion to compel discovery because it "is proceeding on a pro se defense, and as such was not aware of the time limitation of 15 days set for the filing of uotions to com-pel discovery."
CREC's professed ignorance of the requirements of the Rules of Practice is no excuse for missing a filing deadline.
During the course of this proceeding, as well as throughout the course of the recently completed spent fuel pool expansion pro-ceeding and the pending full term operating license proceeding, this Board and the NRC Staff have taken great pains to familiarize CREC with the requirements of the Rules of Practice and to emphasize 1/
the importance of complying with the requirements of these rules. -
l l
Moreover, as the Appeal Board noted in Metropolitan Edison Co. (TMI-2),
l ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, 748 (1978):
The orderly functioning of the adminis-trative process scarcely would be fur-thered were we to allow parties to our proceedings simply to ignore prescribed time limits whenever it suited their l
l
-1/
See e.., the August 17, 1978 Prehearing Conference Transcript l
in w icn the Licensing Board admonished CREC concerning com-pliance with the Rules of Practice and specifically indicated that it does not "look favorably upon a request for an extension of time to do an act after the act is already due to be done."
(Tr. 90).
See also Tr. 77-78 and 89-92; June 19, 1980 Pre-hearing ConfeFence Transcript at 1069.
O 1
-3 convenience to dc so.
We therefore must insist that those limits be hc'i.ored.
In some respects we do relax our rules to acco=modate the fact that a party may not have the benefit of counsel.
But no good reason exists why a double standard shculd obtain insofar as observance of deadlines is concerned.
A non-lawyer has no less capability than does a member of the Bar to apprehend when a document is due for filing.
(emphasis added, citation omitted).
The time has come for the Licensing Board to stop utilizing a double standard in this proceeding.
CREC's motion for an extension of time, as well as its related motion to com-2/
pel discovery, should be denied. -
Res ectful submitted,
. S. Hiestand Attorney for Dairyland Power Cooperative OF COUNSEL Kevin P. Gallen Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Dated:
December 3, 1980
-2/
CREC's motion to compel discovery should be denied in any event.
The interrogatories which CREC is seeking to compel responses to all relate to the magnitude of the safe shutdown earthq' uake (SSE),
the corresponding ground acceleration design value ("g value) for the LACBWR site, and the manner in which the SSE and "g" value were derived.
As noted in both the Licensee's and the NRC Staff's Responses to the Consolidated Intervenors' Interrogatories, the Licensing Board's September 30, 1980 Prehearing Conference Order specifically stated that inquiries concerning such matters went beyond the scope of permissible discovery in this proceeding at this time.
See also Tr. 65-66.
Accordingly, discovery attempts with respect to these matters are objectionable and cannot be compelled.
See Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim 2), LBP-75-42, 2 NRC 159 (1975); XIfied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489 (1977).
See also Glass v. Philadelphia, 64 F.R.D. 559 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
,. ~,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
(Liquefaction (La Crosse Boiling Water
)
Show Cause)
Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has on this day been effected by personal delivery or first class mail on the following persons:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chrm.
Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Co= mission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Ralph S. Decker Board Panel Route 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Box 190D Commission Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Oceanography Appeal Board University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
f
-2 Steven Burns, Esquire Office o'f Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Karen Cyr, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard Shimshak Plant Superintendent Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Fritz Schubert, Esquire Staff Attorney Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Coulee Region Energy Coalition P. O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Attn:
Anne Morse Mr. Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Frederick M. Olsen, III 609 N. lith Street La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
.W
(% i
-fl -
O. S. Hiestand Dated:
December 3, 1980 l
,,