ML20005B023
| ML20005B023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1981 |
| From: | Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107060232 | |
| Download: ML20005B023 (5) | |
Text
i 7/2/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, g al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-461 OL 50-462 OL (Clinton Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE T0 " JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY" On May 29, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the captioned proceeding issued a special prehearing Memorandum and Order which, in pertinent part, ordered that first round discovery requests must be filed not later than June 26, 1981.
On June 26, 1981, Prairie Alliance, admitted as an intervenor, and the State of Illinois, admitted as an interested state pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c), jointly filed a motion to extend the time available to complete first round discovery requests until July 27, 1981.
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff does not support the referenced motion.
Initially, the Staff would note
...at on June 26, 1981, the Prairie Alliance filed a 21-page, detailed interrogatory upon Applicant, which included 63 separate questions addressed to a single contention. On the same date, the State of Illinois filed a 15-page interrogatory upon Applicant. Additionally, Prairie Alliance has telephonically requested a substantial number of documents and information from the NRC Staff, some of which has already been provided to them.
The crux of joint movants' argument in support of their request for additional time to dY gS I
8107060232 81070 l gDRADOCK05000 hp f
.._m y
, ~ _ _. - - -.,.. _ _,,
__m
perfect first round discovery is that they have been unable to obtain expert tec'h'nical counsel in time to prepare their " desired discovery program within the allotted time." Motion, p.2.
In the Staff's view, even a most cursory review of the two cited interrogatories will demonstrate a thorough, comprehensive inquiry into the subject matter of the admitted contentions. Clearly, these interrogatories will bring forth in response substantial information upon which movants can then proceed to develop their cases. Arguably, additional time can always assist a party to an administrative or legal proceeding to develop a "better" work product. However, the interrogatories filed herein, upon examination, are so complex and comprehensive as to negate any suggestion that they are insufficient to accomplish an appropriate result, based upon an alleged lack of technical expertise in their creation.
Finally, the failure of movants to proceed to obtain technical tssistance early enough to assist them with their " desired discovery program" following the second special prehearing conference in this proceeding should not be deemed good cause to disturb the discovery schedule established by the Licensing Board. Scheduling is generally a matter within the discretion of the Licensing BoardE, and there has been no showing herein that the Licensing Board's discovery schedule in this proceeding has been oppressive or impermissibly abbreviated.
Indeed, the Board's Memorandum and Order' provides a 4-week period for responses to discovery requests, an enlargement of the normal 14-day y
10 C.F.R. 92.711(b); see generally,10 C.F.R. 62.718; 10.C.F.R.
Part 2, App. A, Part V; Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-295, 2 NRC 668 (1975).
.- period set forth.in the Comission's regulations.E Accordingly, the Staff finds no basis to support joint movants in their request for an extension of time within which to commence discovery.
For the reasons set forth above, the Joint Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, j
'J &
L-:L--cw' Richard J. Go b Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of July,1981.
4 y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, ~et al.
Docket Nos. 50-461 OL
~
50-462 OL (Clinton Power Station, Units
)
1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE T0 " JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been setved en 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 2nd day of July,1981.
Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman P. O.
Box 127A Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Dr. George A. Ferguson
- Atomic Safety and Licensing School of Engineering Board Panel Howard University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 Sixth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20059 l
- Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris Appeal Board Panel l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
- Docketing and Service Section Peter V. Fazio, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Secretary Schiff Hardin & Waite U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7200 Sears Tower Washington, D.C.
20555 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Philip L. Willman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney Generc.1 Prairie Alliance Environmental Control Divis!on P. O. Box 2424 188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2315 Station A Chicago, Illinois 60601 Champaign, Illinois 61820
l Jeff Urish,.Vice President N
Bloomington-Normal Prairie Alliance 730 Wilkins Normal, Illinois 61761 Reed Neuman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 Gary N. Wright Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor
' Springfield. Illinois 62704 Mr. Herbert H. Livermore RR I Box 229A Clinton, Illinois 61727
^^_
Richard J. Goddapd
~.
Counsel or NRC Staff l
l I
l l
.,,,-,,,r
,,S,.-.
.,...---e.-
--w--~-,,,.,
..w,,o,,.
~.
,,m.e-%
,,,.,