ML20207E355
| ML20207E355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1986 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-025, CON-#386-25 86-528-02-CPA, 86-528-2-CPA, CPA, NUDOCS 8607220302 | |
| Download: ML20207E355 (3) | |
Text
_ _
/
~
y h
.iO~
DOLKEVED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g a 18 P2 57 Before Administrative Judges:
hFFICE OF SEMIW0CKE Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan SERVED JUL R 1986
)
In the Matter of
)
Dacket No. 50-445-CPA
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ~et al.)
~)
ASLBP No. 86-528-02-CPA (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
July 17, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (No fiore Filings At This Time)
As the result of actions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on July 2 and July 3, (1) the question of whether or not either of the intervenors is entitled to party status was certified to the Commis-sion, and (2) discovery was stayed with respect to discovery on which answers were due subsequent to July 3.
The dispute before us now relates to whether or not Applicants should have responded to more discovery requests prior to July 3.
Intervenors have argued, in their " Response to Motion for Clarification and Opposition to Request for Protective Order," that more responses are due pursuant to the discovery regulations and the rulings of this Board.
Applicants have argued, in detail, in their " Response to ' Consolidated Intervenors' Response to Motion for Clarification and Opposition to 8607220302 860717
~
DR ADOCK 05000445 PDR 000
v No More At This Time:
2 Request for Protective Order,'" that their conduct is consistent with the rules and regulations and the rulings of this Board.
We approach this matter as one of fairness and equity.
If Appli-cants had a clear obligation to respond to discovery requests on or before July 3, they should have met their obligation, consistent with the Order of the Appeal Board. Failing to respond in time should not be an excuse for not having done so.
However, we are persuaded that however plausible Intervenors' 1
arguments may be, Applicants have presented facts and arguments that dispel the possibility that a breach of a clear obligation has occurred.
Since the requested information will be useful in this case, if at all, only after the Comission has ruled, we see no purpose in requiring its production at this time.
Should the Commission act to permit interven-tion, we would at that time order a more rapid rate of discovery re-sponse in light of time that has already passed.
As a result of the briefs of the parties, we have been alerted to l
ambiguities existing in the schedule we promulgated.
We will defer clearing up those ambiguities until the Commission determines' whether j
there is a live proceeding in which we may act. In the future, we would I
Mrs. Juanita Ellis of CASE telephoned today promising proof that on June 19 Applicants received CASE's interrogatories that were express mailed on June 18.
However, pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.710, Applicants appear to have been correct in adding two days to the date of express nailing by CASE. The date of receipt appears to be irrelevant.
i l
F No More At This Time:
3 appreciate it if parties that are convinced there are important ambigui-ties in our orders would initiate a conference telephone call and thereby speed up the process of correcting our errors.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 17th day of July 1986 ORDERED That no further responses to interrogatories or requests for documents are due in this case until after the Commission acts'.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Peter B'. Bloch j
Chair Bethesda, Maryland h
l l
l 1
l