ML19345F294
| ML19345F294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | Rooney M GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., MAYER, BROWN & PLATT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102170132 | |
| Download: ML19345F294 (4) | |
Text
'
Dated:
February 11, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
Li FEi j 31981 > f BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL
)
0(({j d L{p, ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) " "s;ht ) )
- Iv Consideration of Renewal of
) Docket No. 70-13 Materials License No. SNM- ) 1265 Issued to G.E. Morris ) Operation Fuel Storage ) Installation. ) I. GENERAL ELECTRIC'S ANSWER TO THE NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO AMEND l l This memorandum is submitted by General Electric in j response to the NRC Staff's motion of February 2, 1981, which seeks to amend this Board's schedule of December 8, 1980. On that date the Board set a schedule for resumption of this t proceeding under 10 C.F.R., Part 72. The schedule was initially proposed by General Electric and no party to this ( proceeding, includilig tha NRC Staff, registered any objection to it. The NRC Staff, now would have this Board defer all motions for leave for additional discovery from February 26, 1981 until fifteen days after the Board has ruled upon the admissibility of any new or modified contentions proposed by any parties on February 26, 1981. General blectric vigorously opposes the NRC Staff's position. 8102379[3;L (2-
j 1 First, General Electric sees no reason to defer the date by which the intervenors (State of Illinois and Rorem) must file motion for leave for additional discovery. They know what new contentions, if any, they will propose so they can seek leave for additional discovery regarding them immediately. General Electric and the NRC Staff can respond to those requests and oppose them if those parties believe the con-tentions, to which the requested discovery relates, are not j appropriate for consideration in this proceeding. Second, General Electric opposes the motion as it applies to both itself and the NRC Staff. February 26, 1981, the.date by which proposed amendments to the contentions are I to be filed is one dajr short oj[ two years after the date General Electric filed its application for this license renewal. Any further delay of this proceeding is inexcusable. All General Electric seeks is a license to continue to operate a facility in exactly the same fashion as it has done for the last nine years, a period during which the Morris Operation has had an excellent safety and environmental protection record. General Electric will have waited two years for that license as of the time this proceeding resumes again. It should not have to wait any longer. Moreover, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that little, if anything, will be gained by the delay which will surely result if the Staff's motion is granted. The two intervenors have thus far produced practically no information ' ~ -, _ _. -,, . s
through the discovery that has thus far been obtained from them. General Electric, it will be recalled, had to file extensive motions to compel, and thereafter motions for sanctions, against each intervenor. Despite that, General Electric still has not been able to force the intervenors to provide either meaning-ful statements of the bases of their contentions or documents supporting them. Finally, General Electric believes that the better way to proceed is to adhere to the schedule as entered on December 8. If the NRC Staff, or, for that matter, the applicant later finds it necessary to seek limited discovery about some aspect of any new or modified contention that is ultimately allowed by the Board, G'neral Electric believes that the appropriate manner in which to proceed is for that party to seek leave of the Board at that time for the purpose of taking that limited discovery. The NRC Staff's approach will necessarily build further unacceptable delay into the proceeding with almost certainly no corresponding benefit. It is, therefore, no wonder that Illinois and Rorem have no objection to the NRC Staff's request. The motion should be denied. Respectfully submitted, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY By: Ronald W. Szwajkowski / Matthew A. Rooney OF COUNSEL: Its Attorneys MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 231 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 782-0600 -
r a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket N.o. 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 tl.at he served a copy of GENERAL ELECTRIC'S ANSWER TO THE NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO AMEND, 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 February 11, 1981: 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 Dr. Linda W. Little Chicago, Illinois 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5000 Hermitage Drive Marjcrie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Commission Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section' office of the Secretary Bridget L. Rorem U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Essex, Il.'.inois 60935 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Everett J. Quigley R.R. 1, Box 378 Kankakee, Illinois 60901 yg g4/4 / Matthew A. Rooney / .}}