ML20126F708

Memorandum & Order (Denying Ccmn Motion to Reconsider Discovery Schedule).* Board Denies Substance of Ccmn Motion for Reconsideration & Requests That NRC & Util Send Kaku Answers to Requests.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 921229

ML20126F708
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	12/28/1992
From:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	CO-OPERATIVE CITIZEN'S MONITORING NETWORK, INC. (CCMN, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#492-13498 92-665-02-OLA, 92-665-2-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9212310082
Download: ML20126F708 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

}*

, UllITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI!1G BOARD '92 PD' 29 ll.i :24 Before Administrative Judges:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Charles H. Kelber Dr. Jerry R. Kline 8FfNED DEC 29 992 In the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Docket Nos. 30-336-OLA COMPANY FOL No. DPR-65 (ASLBP No. 92-665-02-OLA)

(Millatone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2) (Spent Fuel Pool Design)

December 28, 1992 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying CCMN's Motion lj;LILeconsider Discovery Schedule)

In our unpublisiied Memorandum and Order of November 24, 1992, we set January 21, 1993 as the date for filing responses to uncontested discovery requests filed no later than December 18, 1992. We noted that the discovery schedule established in that order captured the essence of CCMN's respective proposal and that all parties had agreed to the discovery schedule concept. Id. at 6 n.3.

9212310082 921228 PDR ADOCK 05000336 0 PDR

[sD@

}

I By motion dated December 20, 1992, CCMN requested the Board to reconsider its November 24 scheduling order and "a direct the parties to " submit answers to December 8 (sic -

should be December 5), 1992 uncontested discovery requests no later than January 5, 1993."8 CCMN explains that its expert, Dr. Kaku, is available to review answers to CCMN's I

discovery requests only between January 5 and 9, 1993.

CCMN's motion to reconsider is denied for the following reasons

1. The motion appears to be late without good cause.

CCMN does not allege any recent change in circumstances to justify a very late compression of the discovery schedule.

CCMN should have moved for reconsideration of our November 24 order by the fastest means possible (FAX, express mail, or telephone) immediately following that order or as soon as it learned that Dr. Kaku could not review answers to discovery requests following the January 21, 1993 due date.

2. The request is unreasonable; the relief sought is impracticable. CCMN's motion was filed in the slowest manner (first class mail) without any indication that the NRC Staff and Licensee were consulted. Assuming for argument that CCMN's motion for reconsideration could have 8

0n December 16, 1992 CCMN filed a continuation of its December 5 discovery reque,sts. Answers to these requests presumably would fall within the ambit of Dr. Kaku's review.

However, CCMN does not refer to the December 16 filing in the instant motion. Nevertheless we include it in our request to the Staff and Licensee below.

_ =_

mm-

i i -

i 1

i 3- -

e i been granted instantly by the Board on December 23 (the day it was received by the Board Chairman),a there would be i

l only six business days available to the other parties to respond to CCMN's discovery requests. This assumes even '

i further that the Board could have instantly communicated its j

ruling to the other parties who, in turn, just happened to 1

l be already prepared to meet the unexpected new deadline.

i 3. CCMN's discovery requests are very broad and i

j technical. The Staff and Licensee may need at least until i

January 21, 1993 to identify which discovery requests should f be answered and which will be resisted by objections and then to prepare answers.

For the reasons stated above, the Board denies the j substance-of CCMN's motion for reconsideration. However, we

take note of the problem respecting Dr. Kaku's availability.

I l We request the NRC Staff and.the Licensee, in the spirit of j accommodation, to send to Dr. Kaku any substantive answers-i to CCMN's discovery requests (December 5 and 16, 1992) for j his review between January 5 and 9, 1993, if such l information is ready for sending. Irr other words, the Board l requests the Staff and Licensee to forgo any perceived-i i . litigation advantage and mere convenience by waiting until i

2 Answers to CCMN's motion would not have been due until

_ January 4, 1993 (by Licensee) and January 11, 1993 (by NRC Staff). The Board has explained to CCMN's representative several-times that CCMN's pleadings must take into account l the right of other parties to answer. .

i i

l

. - ,, - ..---r..- . . - .,,ww-.. , - . , , , , , ., +,n...m9..w.-.,ym. . nn m , .,=,--.-,-o-_m_-, .,w, e e,,.p,,-.,, 1- r e.u- u m ,- --w-r c -m-*+= -t-he * * * * ' =

-4 -

e the January 21 filing deadline. In the long run, Dr. Kaku's careful consideration of the factual issues may simplify and shorten the proceeding.

It is so ordered.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y)/f f Ifan W'. Smith', Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ,

Bethesda, Maryland December 28, 1992

i

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

4 In the Matter of

! NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-336-OLA i

1 (Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

! Unit No. 2)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O (DENYING CCMN'S MOTION)

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except

as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

1 Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 4'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Charles N. Kelber Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 John T. Hull, Esq. Richard M. Kacich Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Director, Nuclear Licensing Office of the General Counsel Northeast Utilities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 270 Washington, DC 20555 Hartford, CT 06101 Patricia R. Nowicki Mitzi S. Bowman Associate Director Coordinator EARTHVISION, INC. DON'T WASTE CONNECTICUT 42 Highland Drive 97 Longhill Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 New Haven, CT 06515

1

!a Docket No.(s)50-336-0LA LB M&O (DENYING CCMN'S MOTION)

Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. I John A. MacEvoy, Esq. Mary Ellen Marucci l i Winston & Strawn 104 Brownell Street l 1400 L Street, N.W. New Haven, CT 06511 l Washington, DC 20005 Michael J. Pray, AIA Frank X. Lo Sacco 87 Blinman Street 4 Glover Place, Box 1125

New London, CT 06320 Middletown, CT 06457 ,

l r

l Joseph M. Sullivan Rosemary Griffiths l 17 Laurel Street 39 South Street ,

Waterford, CT 06385 Niantic, CT 06357 l l

i Professor Michio Kaku Department of Physics City College of New York 138th Street and Covent Avenue New York, NY 10031 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 29 day of December 1992 Office of theAF retary of the Commission

-_