ML20199E257
| ML20199E257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1986 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-518 CH, NUDOCS 8603250457 | |
| Download: ML20199E257 (3) | |
Text
.
March 21,1.986 DOCKETED U%RC UNITED STATES OF Af.1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO?{
g P33 DEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.1UDGE 0FFICE Or t t 00CKLIK;NA, 7
uu-In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR )
Docket No. 50-289 (CH)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,-
)
Unit No.1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TMIA'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR A DELAY OF DISCOVERY i.
INTRODUCTION The NRC staff hereby responds to "TMIA's Request for an Extension of Time and for a Delay of Discovery" ("TMI A's Request"),. dated March 9, 1986.
As set forth below, the request for an extension until March 12,1986 to respond to the Report and Order on Initial Prehearing Conference
(" Report and Order") dated February 27, 1986, is unneces-
.sary, and the request for delay of discovery is without merit and should be denied.
II.
DISCUSSION l
A.
TMIA's Request for Additional Time to Respond to the Prehearing Conference Order is Unnecessary Although ~ TMIA requested until March 12, 1986 to respond to the Report and Order, TMIA h'ad, by the terms of the Report and Order, five l
days after service to respond, and, by the terms of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.710, an additional five days because service of the Report and Order was by l
8603250457 B60321 DESIGNATED ORIGIUAL PDR. ADOCK 05000209 i'
G PDR Cortified Ey J S d y
3 V.
4 mail.
Therefore, since the correct due date for any TMIA response was i
f March 13, 1986 TMIA's request to file its response by March 12, 1986.
was. unnecessary.
I I
i B.
TMIA's Pequest to Delay Discovery is Without Merit The Staff opposes TMIA's request to delay discovery for much the same reasons stated in "Mr. Husted's Answer to TMIA's Request for an Extension of Time and For a Delay of Discovery," served March 13, 1986.
First, although the Presiding Officer's Report and Order, at 13, notes i
that,the discovery schedule agreed to by the parties is subject to exten-sfon "for good cause shown," TMIA offers no explanation why it is unable to proceed with discovery, other than a reference to the pendency of TMIA's Motion to Dismiss and. for Stay, currently before the Commission.
l Further, as shown in the "NRC Staff Response to TMIA's Motion to Dis-miss and for Stay," submitted to the Commission on March 19, 1986, TMIA's motion to dismiss the proceeding is not only untimely and repeti-I-
tive of' arguments previously made to, and rejected by, the Commission, it i
is clearly without merit.
Finally, as noted by Mr. Husted, TMIA has not shown how it' will be harmed hv proceeding with discovery, while the po-
[
tential for harm to Mr. Husted does e):ist if a delay in discovery were to
(
delay. the resolution of issues bearing on his re-employment in certain i
NRC-licensed positions.
Consequently, TMIA has not shown that a delay in discovery is warranted.
TMIA's request to delay discovery is without merit and should be denied.
1!
The Staff did not receive TMIA's Request until March 13, 1986.
s 1
.3-III.
CONCLUSION TMIA's request for an extension of time is unnecessary; its request for a delay of discovery should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Y
b o
. Jodson George Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryle.nd this 21st day of March,1986.
- ---