ML20154R953

Order Denying TMI Alert,Inc 860309 Request for Extension of Time to Object to 860227 Rept & Order on Initial Prehearing Conference & for Delay in Discovery Schedule Incorporated in 860227 Order.Served on 860327

ML20154R953
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/27/1986
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
References
CON-#186-582 85-514-02-OT, 85-514-2-OT, CH, NUDOCS 8603310255
Download: ML20154R953 (4)

Text

eM StVED MAR 27 }ggg i

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before Administrative Law Jt1Ite MR 27 P4 :02 "orton 9. Margulies GFFICE OF w.

00CKETING A IE+, M BRANCH

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-289(CH)

General Public Utilities Nuclear )

' ) (ASt.BP No. 85-514-02-0T)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No.1) ) March 27, 1986

)

Ruling On TMIA's Request For An Extension Of Time And For A Delay Of Discovery TMIA filed a request, dated March 9, 1986, seeking an extension of time in which to object to the Report and Order On Initial Prehearing Conference, dated February 27, 1986, and for a delay in the discovery schedule incorporated in the February 27 order.

The initial prehearing conference was held on February 19, 1986.

The report and order, dated February 27, 1986, was served on March 3, -

1986. It contains a discovery and hearing schedule that was agreed to in advance by all of the parties including TMIA. The schedule is not l

to be extended except for good cause 'shown. The order provided that i objections to the order may be filed by a party within five days after its service.

TMIA, who received the order on March 7, 1986, requested an extension of time to March 12, 1986 to file its objections. It also 06j330 [ 9 h G

S 1

2 requested that discovery be delayed until after the Commission had ruled on TM!A's Motion to Dismiss and for Stay. On February 28, 1986, TMIA had filed a motion with the Ccmmission requesting that the agency reverse its action instituting this proceeding, and that pending a determination, the Commission should stay the subject proceeding. In its March 9, 1986 request, TMIA asserted that no party would be harmed i

by delaying the subject proceeding because the Commission had stayed the effect of the Appeal Board's condition limiting Mr Husted's employment.

Mr. Husted responded to the TMIA request on March 13, 1986, assarting that it should be denied. He stated that as to that part of the request for an extension to March 12, 1986 to file objections, TMIA already was entitled to make the filing on March 13, 1986, because of the five days provided it in the order itself and the additional five days authorized by 10 CFR 2.710 due to the use of the mails. As to delaying discovery, Mr. Husted raised the argument that he may be harmed by a delay in discovery because it could result in a delay in the decision. He considered it unlikely that he would be permitted to resume his work as a licensed operator or trainer of licensed operators or licensed training supervisor until the proceeding had run its course.

GPU Nuclear, in its filing of March 17, 1986, had no objection to the initial part of TMIA's request, although it agreed with Mr. Husted that TMIA had until March 13, 1986 to file its objections. It would deny that part of the request, for a deferral of discovery, for lack of a showing of good cause, 4

, l l

l

. Dl

(

3 In its response of March 21, 1986, Staff concurred that TMIA's 1

request tc file its response by March 12, 1986 was unnecessary. It too took the position TMIA had not shown that a delay in discovery is warranted.

On March 20, 1986, the Commission issued an order denying TMIA's motion to dismiss t'his proceeding. In so doing, it removed the basis for TMIA's request for a delay of discovery. This caused the holding of a hearing on the subject motion by telephone, on March 25, 1986, in order to timely decide the motion and attempt to keep the proceeding on track with the agreed to hearing schedule.

During the call, TMIA made known that it no longer intended to file objections to the February 27 memorandum and order, thereby rendering that part of its request moot. It was prepared to make its interroga-tories available to the parties on March 26, 1986. They agreed to make a good faith effort to compress their response time so that TMIA would be able to have its contemplated two rounds of discovery within the March 1, 1986 to May 1, 1986 discovery period. TMIA's interrogatories k

will not be much out of time with those filed by other parties. Some of Staff's were prepared March 24, 1986. All parties appear to be acting in good faith and there is nothing to indicate.that discovery cannot be completed as ordered. Certainly no extension of time is required for this stage of discovery.

Based on the foregoing, TMIA's request for an extension of time to object to the report and order of February 27, 1986 and for a delay in the hearing schedule is denied. The matter of requiring additional time

d a

4 i

l to cbject to the prehearing conference order has been rendered moot by TMIA's decision not to file objections. Parenthetically, the other j parties were correct in pointing out that TMIA had until March 13, 1986 4

to file objections.

That part of the request seeking a delay in discovery is denied because at this time it is premature. It appears all discovery can be completed within the allotted time. Should it develop not to be so at the conclusion of the first round of discovery, TMIA may file another 4

motion. .

It is so Ordered.

~

4  %

Morton B. Margulie h h 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE i l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of March 1986.

4 h

?

?

i 4

i

- . _ . , - _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . - .~ _ _ _ . - , . . . . _ , . . _ . . . . - . . _ _ . . . . . , _ , _ . _ , , , _ _ . _ _ , . _ .,- -__ _ _ . . - .