ML20207P757

Memorandum & Order,Memorandum (Resumption of Discovery).* Denies Applicant 870112 Contention That Intervenors Discovery Request Was Untimely.Prompt Requests for Extension of Response Time Will Be Considered.Served on 870114

ML20207P757
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/12/1987
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#187-2216 CPA, NUDOCS 8701200168
Download: ML20207P757 (2)

Text

,

22 /G s

e Cat s.! : L -

"'"E '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:

Peter B. Bloch, Chaiman GFFu ,

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 00Chiit A :u Dr. Walter H. Jordan "*

SERVED JAN 141937 In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-445-CPA

)

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, e_t al.)

) ASLBP No. 86-528-02-CPA (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

) January 12, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Resumption of Discovery)

We have just received a letter of January 12, 1987, from Applicants to Consolidated Intervenors. In that letter, Applicants state that Consolidated Intervenors' discovery request, Set 5, was untimely be-cause: (1) we have not yet promulgated a discovery schedule, and (2) our last discovery order has expired.

We consider these arguments to be erroneous and issue this memoran-dum and order to avoid an unnecessary waste of time. Discovery rights do not await a Board order -- they comence automatically under 10 CFR 5 2.740 ff. Discovery orders may be issued to vary the rules that ordinarily apply. Generally, orders are intended to expedite the case beyond time limits or to provide additional time when time limits are unrealistic. For example, our previous order was intended to adopt an expedited hearing schedule. It is ironic that Applicants would invoke that order, whose operation was ir.terrupted by a stay pending 8701200168 870112 PDR G

ADOCK 05000445 PDR

)5 W

)

/

Resumption: 2 appeal, to justify a further delay. That order was intended to accomplish expedition. Its use now to promote delay is entirely out of sympathy with its purpose.

Applicants' failure to respond in due course to the discovery request would delay the discovery process unnecessarily.

We consider discovery to be appropriate at the present time.

Meanwhile, while discovery continues, we will entertain motions or agreements concerning appropriate scheduling of deadlines for requests and responses.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 12th day of January 1987 ORDERED:

Intervenors' discovery request, Set 5, is considered timely. The Board will entertain a prompt request for an extension of time to respond for good cause.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b

y 4,e s Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland l

,