ML20063N964

Answer Opposing Sunflower Alliance 820930 Application to Lift 820930 Discovery Cutoff Date for Issue 1.Intervenor Has Had Over 1 1/2 Yrs to File Discovery.No Good Cause Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20063N964
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/05/1982
From:	Willmore R CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8210070405
Download: ML20063N964 (6)

Text

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

~:.

narrno connesoxnEncn Oggro October. p g .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Il g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .

In the Matter of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE, INC.

APPLICATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY TIME ON CONTENTION ONE By Motion of September 30, 1982, Sunflower Alliance, Inc. et al. (" Sunflower") , asks the Licensing Board to lif t the September 30, 1982, discovery cut-off date for Issue #1 (off-site emergency evacuation planning). Sunflower has identified'no reasons which justify lifting the discovery cut-off date. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.

The September 30, 1982, discovery cut-off date for all Issues other than Issues #9 and #11 was established by the Licensing Board duri'ng the Prehearing Telephone Conference of August 13, 1982.

See Transcript at 753-54. During the month and a half between tha Prehearing Telephone Conference and the discovery cut-off date, Sunflower failed to submit even one additional Issue #1 interrogatory f B210070405 821005

~

f.(DRADOCK 05000440

.- PDR .

(

. . - 4

r o

- = .

~

or document request. On the last day of the discovery period, how-ever, Sunflower filed its Motion to have the cut-off date lifted.

, Sunflower gives three reasons for lifting the discovery cut-F 1 off date: that a hearing date has not yet been scheduled, that the county emergency response plans have not been finalized, and that Lake County has not yet answered Sunflower's interrogatories dressed to the County. None of these reasons merits lifting the 5

f cut-off date.

k As for the still to be published county emergency response h plans, it was noted during the Prehearing Telephone Conference, Tr. at 737-38, that the publication of these plans will fall with-in the " good cause" exemption to the cut-off date, and that Sunflower i thus will be free to ask interrogatories concerning the substance

=

of the plans.

E Lake County's responses to Sunflower's interrogatories to the County also appears to fall within the " good cause" exemption.1/

I Sunflower, therefore, would be entitled to file follow-up interro-gatories based on Lake County's responses.

Sunflower's argument that the discovery cut-off date for Issue

, #1 should be lifted because no hearing date has been scheduled

?

m_

1/ Applicants cited the Lake County responses on the assumption

that the draft responses were to be filed concurrently with Appplicants' answers. Lake County did not, however, file its re-1 sponses at that time, but, instead, has decided to file its

. responses concurrently with the publication of the Lake County emergency response plan.

r i

)

l

_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

is equally without merit. When the Licensing Board established the discovery cut-off dates for all Issues during the August 13, 1982, Prehearing Telephone Conferenec, no hearing dates had been scheduled for any Issues.2/ The Licensing Board recognized, how-ever,that a cut-off of discovery was necessary if the parties were to proceed with this litigation in an orderly manner.

The simple fact is that Sunflower has had over a year and a half to seek discovery, during which time it has filed two sets of interrogatories concerning Issue #1. It certainly has had more than sufficient time to obtain discovery on those aspects of Issue

1. 1 known to it prior to the cut-off date. All the discovery cut-off date accomplishes, is to require that Sunflower finally complete its discovery as to those matters available before the cut-off date.

Sunflower still is free to obtain discovery on documents published and significant new developments occurring after the cut-off date.

In light of this liberal good cause exemption, it is Sifficult to see how Sunflower seriously can maintain that it is prejudiced by a requirement it complete its discovery on existing matters after a year and a half.3/

2/ The hearing dates were scheduled one month later by way of the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Concerning Scheduling) of September 16, 1982.

3/ The discovery cut-off date has the additional salutary result of requiring Sunflower to file any new good cause interrogatories promptly rather than delay for months and thereby jeopardize an early hearing date on Issue #1.

_4_

For these reasons, the motion to lift the discovery cut-off date on Issue #1 should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

~~

By:

Jay B. Silberg, P.C.

Robert L. Willmore Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: October 5, 1982 t

t 9

e G

e e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) '

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to Sunflower Alliance, Inc. Application to Extend Discovery Time on Contention One," were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 5th day of October, 1982, to all those on the attached Service List.

/ * '

Robert L. Willmore Dated: October 5, 1982

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of  : *

)

) .

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. ) .Do'cket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY . ) .

50-441

)

(Parry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ,

l Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST

_e Pater B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docheting and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 t Mr. Frederick J. Shon James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legal Director Washing ton, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue Hiatt Appeal Board OCRE Interim Representati.ve U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue -

Wcshington, D.C. 20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 Dr. John H. Buck Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 08159 Appeal Board Cleveland, Ohio 44108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcehington, D.C. 20555 Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake County Administration Center Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 Center Street Appeal Board Painesville, Ohio 44077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

Wachington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Board Panel , Jefferson, Ohio 44047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C. 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire 915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604

- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .