ML20083P500

Answer Opposing W Eddleman 840403 Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Further Discovery on Eddleman Contention 41.Extension Would Disrupt Remainder of Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20083P500
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/18/1984
From:	Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8404200033
Download: ML20083P500 (8)

Text

' ,

. 601 "

i April 18, 1984 g g tDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UsNac BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 84 APR 19 A11 :03 In the Matter of ) [ 9hr;h

)  ::dMCH CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

P_lant, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO WELLS EDDLEMAN'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO CONDUCT FURTHER DISCOVERY ON HIS CONTENTION 41 On April 3, 1984, intervenor Wells Eddleman filed a ". ..

Motion for Extension of Time to ask Questions based on infor-mation from Welders Identified in March 1984." Applicants strongly oppose the Eddleman Motion. Mr. Eddleman has con-ducted two rounds of discovery on Contention 41 already and the time scheduled by the Board for discovery on this con-tention has expired. Further, the relief requested is based on speculation and is premature, and if granted would disrupt the remainder of the schedule set by the Board for adjudica-tion of Contention 41.

Discovery on Eddleman 41 has been open since September 22, 1982, by order of the Board. Memorandum and Order (Refl cting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference) , LBP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C. 2069, 2113 (1982). In its Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Prehearing Con-l ference) at 7 (March 10,1983) , the Board set March 15, 1984 i

t hdh O k PDR

. _ c

s

[ as the last day for filing discovery requests on Eddleman 41 l 1/

(and other safety contentions) .- This 18-month period, especially when no evidentiary hearings have been conducted i which might interfere with discovery, has clearly provided an l'

l adequate opportunity for Mr. Eddleman and other parties to pursue discovery on Eddleman 41.

Mr. Eddleman waited six months -- until March 21, 1983 --

to pose his first set of discovery requests to Applicants on I contention 41. While Applicants answered the bulk of those interrogatories on the merits on May 12, 1983, some objections were raised which led to a motion to compel filed by Mr.

l Eddleman nearly three months later -- on August 4, 1983. In j telephone conferences held on September 22 and 23, 1983, and in a Memorandum and Order of October 6, 1983, the Board i.

l- granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel.

l Except for two subparts of one interrogatory -- 41-1(1) and .41-1(m) -- Applicants answered all of the interrogatories, as to which the motion to compel had been granted, on November l 11, 1983, and January 13, 1984. Interrogatories 41-1(1) and 41-1 (m) were the subject of negotiations for a consent pro-i tective agreement and, ultimately, of-Applicants' Motion for l Protective Order dated January 13, 1984. .The Board resolved that. dispute-in a telephone conference.on March 8, and a

f Applicants answered the interrogatories, subject to the protective treatment imposed by the Board, on March 14, 1984.,

i j 1/ Applicants recently agreed, however, to extend this dead-

line,to April

3, 1984 as to Eddleman 41.

_____________.-_____.____.____________-___-______...m_m_E_m.__

l

. . a i

l On' April 17, 1984, Applicants answered Mr. Eddleman's second-round discovery requests on Eddleman 41 -- filed on March 26, 1984. On April 3, 1984, Mr. Eddleman served second-round requests as to the March 14, 1984 answers by Applicants ,

on welder employee information. Applicants' responses are now in preparation.

Applicants recite this somewhat tortuous history to illustrate that substantial discovery on Eddleman 41 has taken place, and that any lost opportunity was of Mr.'Eddle-man's own creation. While Applicants posed some objections to the exhaustive discovery requests filed, many of Applicants' objections ultimately were sustained by the Board. Further, Applicants should not be disadvantaged now for Mr. Eddleman's failure to conduct discov ery promptly. He waited six months to pose his first requests and three months after the responses to file a motion to compel. The second-round requests came more than ten months after the answers to the-first set and over four months after the bulk of disputed interrogatories was answered.

The relief now sought by Mr. Eddleman is unreasonable.

On March 14, 1984 he was sent the welder employee.information.

Mr. Eddleman presumably intends to contact these employees in an attempt to gain additional information on Eddleman 41.

In essence, then, he has obtained the capability to continue discovery of Applicants through their employees. The Motion, however, seeks the opportunity to come back to Applicants n

with a third round of formal discovery after Mr. Eddleman has found the time to contact our employees. It is Mr. Eddle-man's decision to pursue his case in this manner. He has no right, however, to extend the discovery period to accommodate this approach or to delay the proceeding until every potential for asking further questions is exhausted.

Paying deference only to his own plans for participation in the environmental hearing, Mr. Eddleman seeks leave to file such additional discovery until July 30, 1984. Among other problems with the proposal, it manifestly ignores the Board's August 9, 1984 deadline for filing testimony on this contention.

This date, in turn, is pivotal to the initiation of hearings on the management and other safety issues. See March 10, 1983 Memorandum and Order at 7.

Discovery must at some point come to an end. Mr. Eddleman has been provided ample opportunity for discovery on Eddleman 41, and the maintenance of the Board's schedules is now crucial to the orderly and timely completion of this proceeding. The-Eddleman Motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, hm =_ *

• '" mas A. Baxter, P.C.

.,aAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1090 J

.. e .

'n i Richard E. Jones  !

Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Counsel for Applicants Dated: April 18, 1984 1

.r

.o

\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Wells Eddleman's Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Further Discovery on His Contention 41" were served this 18th day of April, 1984, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached

! Service List.

l == .

Thomas A. Baxter, P'.C.

i

a t

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00R ETED "GNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO;UUl m art iy A11 :03 In the Matter of ) .

;,3 g ggggg,

) (.n',KlilNG & SEFVIIJ CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket N644N@0-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Janes L. Nelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cannission 307 Granville Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear P-1*my Cannission P.O. Box 12607 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolira 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D.. Wilson Atanic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear PMA*~y MWan Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wells addleman Charles A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Janica E. Moore, Esquire Durhan, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Imgal Dirwn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chunission Richard E. Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Vice President armi Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Ocspany Docketing and Service Section P.O. Box 1551 office of the Secretary Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Otzenission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Iotchin 108 Bridle Run Mr. Daniel F. Road, President Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 GAN2/EIP 5707 Waycross Street Dr. Linda W. Little Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Governor's Maste Management Board 513 Albanarla Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh,terth Carolina 27611

, p

.s Bradley w. Jones, Esqpire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ocnnission Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire l

Atmic' Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Omnission Washington, D.C. 20555 s Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director 4 Public Staff - NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

l s

• A