ML20003C886
| ML20003C886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103180634 | |
| Download: ML20003C886 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
3/17/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g:
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFET_Y AND LICENSING BOARD b
x, In the Matter of
)
39 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY)
Docket No. 70-l'308 2
)
(Renewal of Si44-1265)o
~ ~'5 (GE Norris Operation Spent Fuel
)
JE Storage Facility)
)
W k
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO INTERVENOR THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS' MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY On December 8,1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereafter "the Board") issued an " Order Granting Stay of Proceeding" (Order).
The J
Board's Order responded to the request of Intervenor the State of Illinois for a stay of further proceedings until 30 days after the effective date of new 10 CFR Part 72, " Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation".1/ In its Order, the
~
Board stated that since Part 72 is now the controlling regulation in this
' license renewal proceeding, "it appears appropriate that additional time be granted for filing of amended contentions, replies thereto, and any further discovery which might-be appropriate under the new Part 72".
Order at 2.
In its Order, the Board also adopted a schedule to control future proceedings, which was subsequently amended by the Board in " Order Ruling on Motion to Amend" (February 19,1931).
As amended, the schedule 1/
10 CFR Part 72 became effective on December 12, 1980, 45 Fed.
Reg. 78623 (November 26,.1980).
8103.180634
..m
. established March 19, 1981 as the date "upon which the parties shall file motions for additional discovery."M Order Ruling on liotion to Amend, supra at 2.
On February 25, 1981, Intervenor the State of Illinois (hereafter "Intervenor" or " Illinois") filed "l10 tion for Lene for Additional Discovery" (hereafter " Illinois' Motion").
In its Motion, Illinois states that it
" moves pursuant to the Board Order entered December 8,1980, that the Board grant it leave to file additional discovery herein".
Illinois' liotion, supra, at ' 1.
In support of its motion, Illinois reiterates its support of the Staff Motion to Anend Board Schedule, supra, and states that "since the Board has not yet ruled on that motion as of this date, Illinois. nust request leave to file additional discovery".3_/
_Id_., at 1.
In addition:
~
3.
Illinois asks that it be allowed to file discovery pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.740 g seq. on issues raised by any modified or additional contentions admitted herein.
4.
Illinois also seeks leave to file additional dis-covery on the original contentions admitted herein in light of the pronulgation of 10 CFR Part 72. This is necessary due to the Applicant's previous refusal' to allow discovery concerning 10 CFR Part 72.
For example, in.the depositon of David M. Dawson on September 12, 1980, counsel for Applicant stated:
1 i
l-
-2/
The Board's Order Ruling on Motion to Amend was issued in response l
'to the "NRC Staff 110 tion to Amend Board Schedule of December 8, i
1980," dated February 2,1981 -(hereafter " Staff's Motion to Amend Board Schdule").
3/
It appears that Illinois' liotion was filed before it had received the-February-19, 1981, Order Ruling on !!otion-to Amend,,s_up-a, which u
established March 19, 1981 as^ the date for filing of motions for l
additional discovery..Under the original _ schedule, such motions L
were to be filed by February 26, 1981.
6
_._.u.
u,..
~. _. _ _ _ _... _
--.-y
.. "I guess I will advise the witness 'not to answer any questions about proposed Part 72 Regulations unless you can explain to me somehow why we should consider proposed regulations in this proceeding, when the Board has already directed that we shouldn't."
[pp. 70-71]
Thus, Illinois submits that the parties should be allowed additional discovery on the original contentions in light of i
5.
Illinois requests that after its ruling on the admission of any modified or additional contentions and after consultation with the parties herein, the I>oard set a schedule
. for additional discovery herein.
As stated below, the Sta" opposes Illinois' Motion to the xtent that i
it seeks leave to file additional discovery requests af ter !1 arch 19,1981, the date established 'for filing such requests by the Board in its Order Ruling on Motion'to Amend, supra.
In addition, the Staff opposes the request in Illinois' Motion for leave to file additional discovery requests related to I
. the o'riginal ' contentions. The Staff has no objection to Illinois' request that the Board set a' schedule for additional discovery, to the exter.t that such alschedule would establish the time period or date for responding to the additional discuvery requests which are to be filed by March 19, 1981.
i STAFF POSITION L
'The.-NRC Staff believes that Illinois' flotion indicates a misunder-standing on Illinois'. part regarding the. Board's10rder of December 8, 1980, as amended, granting additional time for filing additional contentions
.and additional discovery. : It is not evident that _in'.the Board's ' Order
. Ruling on Motion -to /cend, supra, establishing March 19, 1981 as the date for filing additional discovery, the Board. intended that motions for leave L
) a to file additional discovery were to be filed by that date, with the actual discovery requests to be filed by some future date.
To the contrary, it appears reasonable to conclude that the additional ' discovery requests were to be filed by liarch 19, 1981, and not, as Illinois suggests in paragraphs 3.
and 5. of its Motion, that a schedule would subsequently be adopted for filing. the actual discovery requests. Thus, to the extent that in Illinois' Motion, Illinois seeks leave to file additional discovery requests after liarch 19, 1981, such motion should be denied.
The Staff would not oppose, however, Illinois' request in paragraphs 3. and 5. of its liotion, that the Board adopt a schedule for additional discovery, to the extent that such schedule would establish the date or time period for responding to the additional discovery requests to be filed on 11 arch 19,1981.
The Staff believes that there are no grounds for granting the relief sought by Illinois in paragraph 4.
Illinois seeks leave to file additional =
. discovery "on the original contentions admitted herein in light of the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 72".
Illinois' 110 tion, supra, at 2.
In this regard, the Staff notes that in the-Board's Order of December 8,1980, the
- Board provided additional time for filing additional conter.tions in light.
of the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 72, Illinois _ has filed such additional c'ontentions.E It is _ the Staff's ooinion that any additional discovery requests are to relate to such additional: contentions only and not to the previously admitted contentions.
In the Staff's view, any of the issues
_3]
See " Additional Contentions of The State of Illinois," February 25, 1981.
1MW
D 4 W %-NL++
dN Ss 9-c-
E
=4
=
des
'-sW--"am---
A
-g pp. -
4
. which the parties seek to raise in view of the promulgation of new Part 72 are to be co'.ered by such additional contentions or by nodification of the original contentions.
In requesting " leave to file additional discovery on the original contentions... in light of the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 72" (Illinois' Motion, supra, at 1), Illinois is essentially seeking to expand the scope of the previously admitted contentions to encompass issues related to the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 72.
Illinois had the opportunity to propose nodifications of the original contentions in light of the promulga-tion of 10 CFR Part 72, but Illinois did not do so.
There is no basis for granting a discovery request which would expand the scope of the previously admitted contentions. Accordingly, the Staff opposes Illinois' request for
" leave to file additional discovery on the original contentinns... in light of the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 72."
(Illinois' !!otion at 2).
CONCLllSION Based on the foregoing, it is the Staff's position that the request of Illinois in paragraph 4. of Illinois' Motion for leave to file additional discovery on the previously admitted contentions should be denied. To the extent that Illinois requests in paragraphs 3 and 5. of its notion that additional time beyond fiarch 19, 1981 be provided for filing addi-tional discovery requests, such motion should also be denied.
The Staff has no objection to Illinois' request in paragraphs 3. and 5. of its
!!otion that the Board set a schedule for additional discovery, to the extent that such a_ schedule would establish the time period or date for
.-m,
- responding to the additional discovery requests to be filed by March 19, 1981.
Respectfully subriitted, M
&k $Wh*N Mar,iorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for flRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of March, 1981 l
L,
+_
e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 ANS'JER TO INTERVENOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS' MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY" in the above-captioned proteeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, firs _t class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or, as indicated by a double asterisk, via Postal Express, this 17th day of March, 1981:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Administrative Judge '
-Essex, IL 60935 Atomic ' Safety and Licensing Board 3320 Estelle Terrace Edward Firestone, Es_q.
Wheaton, MD 20906.
Legal Operation General Electric Company Dr. Linda W. Little-
'175 Curtner-Avenue Administrative Judge Mail Code 822 5000 Henaitage Drive -
San Jose, CA -95125 Raleigh, NC--27612-Mr. Everett Jay-Quigley Dr. Forrest J..Remick.
R.R. 1: Box 378
~ Administrative Judge -
Kankakee, IL 60901 305. East.Hamil ton Avenue State' College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- i John ' Van Vranken, Esq. **
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555-188 West Randolph Street-Suite 2315-
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Chicago,.IL 60601 Panel ~(5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ronald Szwajkowski, Esq'
' Washington, DC 20555 Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Hayer, Brown & Platt-Docketin? and Service Section (7)*
231.. South LaSalle-Street Offt of the Secretary
. Chicago, IL 60604
--U n:lcar. Regulatory Cortnission
% ;td 7 ton, DC 20555 Y
/hau,W ll.ltu m l]&sL &
' Marjorie Ulman Rothschild.
~
-Counsel for NRC Staff