ML20041E172
| ML20041E172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1982 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203100215 | |
| Download: ML20041E172 (4) | |
Text
!
r
- c. f' 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!1 MISSION
,02 //"?o 'S P5~,).
.?.
- w.,'
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
-2
)
1992 ~/
~ ' _,Q' W" Before Administrative Judges:
i w.
m'/;3 Marshall E. Miller, Chairman
\\
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dig 82%(G Dr. Richard F. Cole N
SERVED MAR Docket Nos.
5 In the Itatter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATIllG COMPANY, et al.
(Application for Operating License)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
March 8' 1982
)
ORDER Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) filed a motion on March 1, 1982 seeking an extension of time for discovery concerning Contention 5.
That contention relates to the Applicants' alleged failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality ' control provisions required by l
the Comanche Peak construction permits. The cutoff date for Contention 5 l
discovery is March 29, 1982. The motion for extension of time is denied.
l CASE argues that circumstances have changed since the establishment of the cutoff date because CFUR has moved for its voluntary dismissal from the proceedings.
However, on December 1,1981 at a prehearing conference, the Board severed the prior consolidation of CFUR and CASE as to discovery i
on Contention 5.1/ CASE was therefore free to conduct its own discovery immediately on the facts involved in Contention 5, and all parties were urged l
D50}
1/ r. 101.
T T
I/
8203100215 820300 PDR ADOCK 05000445 c
?
. to conclude discovery expeditiously.
It was also ordered that discovery "shall commence immediately on all issues."2/ The Order establishing the March 29 cutoff date for discovery on Contention 5 was entered February 9, one day after the Board was advised by telephone of CFUR's withdrawal of all of its contentions.
Consequently, there are no significantly changed circumstances which would justify any further extension of discovery time.
The documents described in CASE's motion should be discoverable, if such discovery is appropriate, by March 29.
CASE seems to be under a misapprehension that there is an "early cutoff of discovery," or that this litigation is " premature" or " hasty".
Such conclusions are grossly inaccurate.' The Commission has expressly advised licensing boards in a Policy Statement to see "that the process moves along at an expeditious pace, consistent with the demands of fairness."3_/
As to CASE's problems as a citizen group, the Commission stated:
"While a board should endeavor to conduct the proceeding in a manner that takes account of the special circumstances faced by any participant, the fact that a party may have personal or other obligations or possess fewer resource than others to devote to the proceeding oes not relieve that party of its hearing obligations."_
It further provided the following specific guidance to boards:
"The Commission expects licensing boards to set and adhere to reasonable schedules for proceedings.
The Boards are 2/ cheduling Order entered December 11, 1981, p. 2.
S 3_/Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 453 (1981).
1/
., at 454.
Id
1
, aavised to satisfy themselves that the 10 CFR 2.711 ' good cause' standard for adjusting times fixed by the Board or prescribed by Part 2 h an extension of time."_gg actually been met before granting y
In this proceeding, CASE has failed to show good cause for a further extension of time for discovery. At i,ts own request, it was permitted to conduct independent discovery on Contention 5 after December 1, 1981.
Ample time was established for this prupose and all parties were directed to proceed expeditiously. Time temains for any further necessary discovery to be accomplished. However, according to monthly reports furnished by NRC to the Bevill Committee of Congress, an initial decision is scheduled to be entered by this Board in September, 1982".5/ It is obvious that to comply with this ' schedule an evidentiary hearing must be scheduled soon, with imminent cutoff dates for discovery, motions,' trial briefs and prefiled testimony. All parties must therefore proceed expeditiously to comply with the Commission's planning guidance "which urged Boards to take firm hold of hearings and keep them moving."1/
E/
(
Id 5/ Fifteenth report by NRC to the Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman, Subcommittee l
on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, United States House of Representatives, dated January 29, 1982, Table 1, page 1.
1/. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy and Planning Guidance 1982, U
i NUREG-0085, Issue 1, page 4.
l l
. Accordingly, CASE's motion for extension of time for discovery on l
Contention 5 is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b.
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i
l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland i
this 8th day of March, 1982.
w t
l l
I i
l l
l l
l l
l I
l
-.