ML20235A810

Licensee Opposition to Intervenor Rl Anthony Request for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Intervenor Request Should Be Denied as Intervenor Had Adequate Opportunity to Review Responses & Pursue Addl Discovery.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20235A810
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	01/06/1988
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#188-5293 OLA, NUDOCS 8801130045
Download: ML20235A810 (5)

Text

L [$ M .,

000KGED U W .C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'I

'88 JAN 11 P2 :01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'.1 -

jlefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board [0 f  ?

B R A tK "

In the Matter of )

l )

l Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket No. 50-35'2-OLA

) (TS Iodine) ,.

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Unit 1) ) ,

s LICEN!;EE' S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR R. L. ANTHONY'S , p REQl'EST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY l

On December 20, 1987, R. L. Anthony, an intervenor in the captioned proceeding, requested an extension of time until January 22, 1988 to complete discovery. For the .,

1 reascns discussed below, Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company (" Licensee"), opposes the extension of time as unwarranted. The time allowed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for discovery was reasonable, especially ,

considering that only a single contention was admitted and that Licensee had stated its case on the merits in its motion for summary disposition filed at the outset of discovery. 7 Mr. Anthony offers three arguments for allowing more ,

discovery time, none of which support the requested exten-l sion. First, he complains that the discovery documents sent by Licensee were delayed in arrival. Licensee'a counsel

}

transmitted the material in a timely manner utilizing the

same address used for service for this proceeding. While ,-

8801130045B8h52 ADOCK O5 PDR PDR 0g b6 ,

1 l6-e there;appearc to'have been.some misdirection by the Postal ]

Service, Mr. Anthony acknowledges .that the material . was received on. December 10, 1987. Even measured by this date, Licensee's response.was timely under this Board's Order of November 20, 1987.1 While he now complains about the legibility of certain sheets of readouts,'Mr. Anthony never raised the. matter at the time. He received' the original i

printout sheets which Licensee had sent out on December 4, 1987 cn December 18, 1987. Mr. Anthony had' an adequate '

l- . i opportunity to review .the responses to his discovery re- <

-J quests and pursue any additiional_ discovery from the Licensee )

i l within the discovery period set by the Board. He should not' be permitted an extension to the discovery period to-pursue i l

new matters which could and should have been explored within Ll I

the more-than-adequate period set by the Board. This assertion does not provide a basis for permitting new discovery.

Mr. Anthony's next basis for an extension'is a December i 2, 1987 . letter from Licensee's counsel which provided responses to his discovery request. Mr. Anthony is not satisfied with the response to Item 3 which stated that,  ;

1_/ The Board required Licensee to answer Mr. Anthony's

. discovery requests on or before December 22, 1987. See

" Memorandum and Order (Procedural Ruling s ) " at 7 (November 20, 1987). Even the duplicate material which Mr. Anthony states he received on December 18, 1987 was timely.

t 1

i.

other than documents 'provided in reply to Item 1, the Licensee had identified no documents responsive to that inquiry. Here again, Mr. Anthony's dissatisfaction with Licensee's discovery response is no warrant for wholly new discovery requests.2_/

As the third and final reason, Mr. Anthony cites a letter from the NRC to the Licensee dated November 23, 1987 relating to its review of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual ("ODCM") Revision 4 and certain suggested improve-ments. The NRC Staff makes the point in the cover letter that "[t]he changes to the Limerick ODCM . . . are refinements to a basically sound document." The document was served by the Staff on Mr. Anthony and others on November 23, 1987, approximately one month before Mr.

Anthony's motion for an extension of time had been filed.

There is no reason why, if Mr. Anthony thought that i

additional discovery relating to the ODCM were necessary, it could not have been pursued during the course of the original discovery period. Therefore, the extension request based upon this document cannot be justified.

3 2/ While Mr. Anthony states no basis for his assertion that the response was incomplete or inaccurate, the  ;

appropriate remedy would have been a motion to compel discovery limited to the document request and not an overall enlargement of the time for discovery.

l l

1 1

1>

l' I

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Anthony's request for an extension of the discovery period in this proceeding should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

^

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company January 6, 1988 I

I i

i i

1 l

i 1

)

I l

I J

\

i DJf.H ill U*C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 JW 11 P2 :01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boagl((5tgt IAg BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket No. 50-352-OLA

) (TS Iodine)

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Opposition To Intervenor R. L. Anthony's Request For An Extension Of Time For Discovery" dated January 6, 1988 in the captioned matter has been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 6th day of January, 1988:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.

Chairman Robert M. Weisman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Counsel for NRC Staff Licensing Board Panel Office of the General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Counsel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Or. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Docketing and Service Licensing Board Panel Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson Mr. Frank R. Romano Atomic Safety and 61 Forest Avenue Licensing Board Panel Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert L. Anthony Washington, D.C. 20555 Box 186 103 Vernon Lane Moylan, PA 19065

. G Maex >. ..tt.rmamn I;

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . -- _