ML20009B972
| ML20009B972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1981 |
| From: | Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ILLINOIS, STATE OF, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107200101 | |
| Download: ML20009B972 (3) | |
Text
T s s (2 " :=
h
- a
.e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g,T D g v NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-gUb 1 61961
- I 42 gL
(
otnce d e N n y
].
g g,&f0MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD D][*' 7 ga[ M efore Administrative Judges:
g 9
Hugh K. Clark, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson s\\- Q, gg4[
Dr. Oscir H. Paris SERVED Nl~lG ggy
~
J
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-461 OL ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
50-462 OL
)
(Clinton Power Station, Units 1 and 2
)
July 16, 1981
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery)
By Memorandum and Order dated May 29, 1981 a hearing was ordered in the captioned matter.
PrairieAlliance(PA)wasadmittedasanintervenor, and twelve of its contentions were accepted for litigation. The State of i
Illinois (Illinois) was granted permission to participate as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 52.715(c). A schedule for first round discovery l
l was established as follows:
(1) requests for discovery to be made not later than June 26, 1981; (2) responses to discovery to be filed not later
+han July 27, 1981, or four weeks after receipt of discovery requests, whichever is the earlier date.
l On June 26, 1981 Applicants and Staff filed interrogatories upon PA, and PA and Illinois filed interrogatories upon Applicants.
Illinois's I
interrogatories complemented those of PA; each of the accepted contentions was addressed by interrogatories filed either by PA or by Illinois.
$k 0107200101 810716 p0I
~~'
PDR ADOCK 05000461 O
4 2-Concurrent with the filing of interrogatories on June 26, 1981 4
PA and Illinois filed a Joint Motion requesting an extension of time i
rom June 26 to July 27, 1981 to complete filing of the first round of discovery. The lack of expert personnel to assist in framing interroga-
~
tories on the issues was offered as a justification for the desired delay.
In addition the issues were described as "many and complex".
Staff and Applicants responded to the Joint Motion on July 2 and 8, 1981, respectively. The Staff opposed the Joint Motion on the grounds that (1) the interrogatories already filed by PA and Illinois were exten-sive, thorough and comprehensive, and (2) there had been no showing that the _ schedule set by the Board was oppressive or impermissibly abbreviated.
- The Applicants also opposed the motion. Applicants' grounds for opposi-3 tion included:
(1) the wide scope of the interrogatories already filed
- upon: Applicants, (2) the optimistic predictions by PA and Illinois at the Second Special Prehearing Conference that they would be able to meet l-schedules, (3) the unfairness of giving some parties an extension of time after the other parties have filed their interrogatories, (4) the Commis-sion's proposed amendment to 10 CFR 52.730(b) restricting the number of interrogatories to be filed in NRC proceedings, and (5) unjustifiable delay.
1 i
The Commission's concern over the timely disposition of ap;'ications l
for operating licenses for nuclear power stations was set forth in a policy l
statement dated May 20, 1981 (CLI-81-8), copies of which were forwarded to l
all parties in this proceeding by the Secretary of the Commission under a i
l letter dated May 21, 1981. Attention of the. parties is rected to section III. A of that policy statement.
l I
.r n.n.-.
.,, - -.,.~,,
n..-
.--~n,
e
. __ Both PA and Illinois filed requests for hearing in the present matter in October, 1980. This Board has tried to be responsive to PA's personnel problems by giving the Intervenor ample time to frame contentions. But the time has come when PA and Illinois, and all other parties, must meet reason-able time schedules, subject to change only on a showing of good cause pur-suant to 10 CFR $2.711. The facts plead by-PA and Illinois do not constitute good cause. The "many and complex" issues are fewer than earlier contem-plated by PA and Illinois, because some of the contentions were disallowed.
The need of PA for expert personnel has been evident for more than 6 months.
Accordingly, neither the existence of "many and complex" issues nor the lack of expert assistance establishes good cause for extending the discovery schedule.
The delay that would result from granting the Joint Motion is unjustifiable, and the motion is denied.
The'other objections of Staff and Applicants are not without merit.
The motion might well be denied on the basis of one or more of them. The-Board, however, rests its decision squarely on the importance of conducting this proceeding'in a proper and expeditious manner.
For the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire 4
record in this matter, it is this 16th day of July, 1981 ORDERED That the Joint Motion.for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery l
_ s, denied.
i FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY 4
AND LICENSING BOARD L
CEA/
CL,\\/ \\ J ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE c
For:
Hugh K. Clark, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i
--,---,,,-,~,~--..-,,~-.,,----~~,n.