ML20080P684
| ML20080P684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1984 |
| From: | Swiger M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402230054 | |
| Download: ML20080P684 (7) | |
Text
_
4
\\
DOCKETED USMC February 21, 1984
'84 EB 22 All d2
-.-- p(
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 COMPAN'i, ET AL.
)
50-441'
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SUNFLOWER'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY ON ISSUE NO. 1 By motion of February 3, 1984,.Intervenor Sunflower Alliance, r
. Inc., et al. -(" Sunflower") asks the Licensing Board "to allow the
~
reopening of discovery" on Issue No.
1, concerning emergency planning.
Sunflower's Motion To Reopen Discovery on Issue No. 1, dated February 3, 1984
(" Motion"), at 1.
Sunflower in its Motion states: " Substantial justice and fairness dictate that the inter-venors be allowed, not just to receive the seasonable updates to previous discovery requests, but that new discovery requests, including but not limited to depositions and further interrogatories, be authorized by the Board. "
Motion at 2.
Sunflower's Motion is without cause and should bc denied.
ci 84022 P *30054 840221'9a 9
.i 9
j
- s L(f
- The Licensing Board has. made clear that it will not entertain blanket requests to reopen or extend discovery.
In denying an earlier motion by Sunflower for an indefinite extension of dis-covery on Issue No. 1, the Licensing Board stated:
[T]he purpose of a discovery cut-off date is to require a parti to complete an much discovery as is feasible before that date.
The fact that Sunflower will obtain additional information in the future will permit it to argue that it has good cause for late-filing of interrogatories with respect to that material, providing that the information was not previously available to it.
We will not deprive Sunflower of its fair opportunity to seek discovery of matters not previously known to it, but that is not a reason to extend the deadline on matters already known to it.
Memorandum and Order (Concerning Request to Extend Discovery on Issue #1), dated October 8, 1982, slip op. at 1.
The Licensing Board recently redffirmed these principles when it denied Inter-venor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy's Motion to reopen discovery on Issues No. 6, 8, 14 and 15.
See Memorandum and
' Order (OCRE Motion to Reopen Discovery), dated December 20, 1983, slip op. at 1-3.
The same principles require denial of the instant Motion.
Further, Sunflower's Motion fails to establish the good cause required to conduct.any additional disccvery on this issue.
The Motion is supported only by the general observations that
"(t]echnical arrangements for emergency planning coordination have been made, or are considerably more completed, than was the -
((
f-case in 1982" and that "[a]11 of the affected counties have greatly and materially expanded their physical response
. capabilities as part of emergency planning."
Motion at 1-2,1!
Nowhere does Sunflower identify any particular information or material, not previously available to it, which would provide good cause for further discovery. I Neither does it identify l_/ Sunflower also asserts -as good c.ause that "[u]pon information and belief, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Ohio Disaster. Services Agency have begun to plan or conduct tabletop exercises."
Motion at 2.
The Commission's regulations state that
"[elmergency preparedness exercises (required by paragraph 03) ( 1 4 )
of this Section and Appendix E, Section F of this part) are part of the operational inspection process and are not required for any initial licensing decision."
10 C.F.R.
S 50.47 (a) (2) (emphasis added).
Since the emergency preparedness exercises are beyond
-the scope'of this-proceeding, see-Statement of considerations to Notice of Final Rulemaking, 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 (1982), Sunflower's information cannot be good cause for additional discovery ~on Issue No. 1.
2/ Neither does Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy T"OCRE") in its Brief in Support of " Sunflower's Motion To Reopen Discovery on Issue #1," dated February 17, 19.84 (filed February 18,
'1984) ("OCRE Brief"), provide good cause.to conduct additional discovery on Issue No.'l.
OCRE cites a letter from counsel for
.the NRC Staff
(" Staff") to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(" FEMA"), dated December 29, 1983, requesting an evaluation and affidavit by a FEMA representative in support of a possible motion for summary disposition to be filed by the Staff prior to the hear-ing'on this issue, then tentatively scheduled for March 1984.
OCRE states that "[t]he Staff's -plan for the imminent summary disposition of this issue.alone constitutes abundant good cause for reopening
--discovery."
OCRE Brief'at 2.
On the contrary, the letter cited by OCRE contains no particular information or material which would justify additional discovery on Issue No.
l.-
It simply does not follow that, because the Staff
- may be considering filing a motion for summary disposition, discovery must be-reopened.
Moreover, OCRE does not show why it is necessary to reopen discovery in order to determine "the basis for FEMA's assessment." ROCRE Brief-at 2.
At'any rate, Applicants are unaware of any " imminent" plans by the Staff to file a motion for summary disposition; and it is obvious that no hearing will be held on
. Issue No. 1 in March 1984.
t 1
[.&*;
i 1
-the particular types of. additional information or material which
'it seeks to obtain.E
-Sunflower already has conducted extensive discovery on Issue lNo.-1.
This discover 3 has included numerous interrogatories and document requests covering a wide range of emergency planning issues.S['Moreover,discoveryhasbeenclosedforalmosttwoand
~
one-half-fears, since September 30, 1982.
See Tr. 753-54 Jf Applicants are in the process of supplementing'their answers
. to Sunflower interrogatories on Issue No. 1.
Applicants' supple-
~ mental answers will address the current status of of fsite evacuation planning for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, including information
- .regarding " technical arrangements"~and " physical response capabilities."
-If,. af ter Applicants have filed their supplemental answers, Sunflower believes it has good cause-to seek specific additional information,
.it may file a request for:further discovery in:accordance with the Licensing. Board's prior rulings.
4/ -See. Sunflower _ Alliance,-Inc. Fourth Request for Production of_ Documents toLNuclear Regulatory Commission in Care of Exe-cutive' Director' of Operations, -Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
205SS, dated September 30, 1982; Third Request for Production of Documents to Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'
- Washington, D.C.
20555,. dated June 30, 1982; Sunflower Alliance, Inc.,: et1al. Second Set of Interrogatories to NRC Staff, dated LApril 30,-1982;JSunflower Alliance,-Inc., et al. Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, dated April. 30, 1982; Request for Production;of Documents to NRC, dated. February 24, 1982; Inter-venors Request for Production of Documents to Applicant, dated February :2:4, 1982; Sunflower Alliance, Inc., et al. Second Set lof. Interrogatories to Lake County Commissioners and Lake County
- Disaster Service Agency (hereinafter. called County), dated February 24, 1982; Sunflower-Alliance Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Lake County Commissioners and Lake; County Disaster Services Agency, dated December 18, 1981; Sunflower Alliance's Interrogatories to Nuclear Regulatory-
. Commission Staff ' (First Set), _ dated December 18, 1981; Sunflower
+
Alliance, Inc. et al. First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, dated: December 2, 1981.
4.-
4
\\
(August 13, 1982 Prehearing Telephone Conference).
The Licensing
-Board has previously held that " matters dhat can be completed, be completed,. so that they will not interfere with other mattere that may arise."
Memorandum'and Order (Concerning Recuest to Extend Discovery on Issue #1), supra, slip op. at 2.
Sunflower's Motion fails to show why additional discovery needs to be con-ducted on this issue.
For all of the above reasons, Sunflower's Motion To Reopen ~
- Discovery on Issue No.1 should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:
N4'4M k.
[W JAY E. SILBERG, P.C.
MICHAEL A.
SWIGER Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 DATED:
February 21, 1984 _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _
'h 1
3 February 21, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
' In-the Matter of
)
)
50-440 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos.
)
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's Motion To Reopen Discovery On Issue No. 1" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid,._this 21st day of February, 1984, to all those on the attached Service List.
& p'c A Y h. b b s' f MICHAEL A.
SWIGER
- DATED:
February 21, 1984
t 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
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
~
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST ktomic Safety and Licensing Pater _B. Bloch, Chairman Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Countission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Jerry R.
Kline 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 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Mr.'Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety. and Licensing ' Board Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative Appeal Board U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue Washington, D.C.
20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 Terry Lodge, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Toledo, Ohio 43624 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Lake County AA=4nistration Center Gary'J. Edles, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 center Street Appeal Board Painesville, Ohio 44077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John G. Cardinal, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- - _ _ _ -. - _ _ - - -