ML17339A366
| ML17339A366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912070168 | |
| Download: ML17339A366 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ll/27/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.
3 and 4)
Docket Nos.
50-250 50-251 (Proposed Amendments to Facility
.Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repair)
NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME... REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND RE UEST FOR HEARING INTRODUCTION On November 9, 1979, the Intervenor filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Objections to Interrogatories; Opposition to Florida Power and Light Company's Attempt to Preclude Petitioner 's Interrogatories; Request for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel and Request for Hearing."
The motion essen-tially contains three requests:
(1) that the Board accept its out-of-time discovery request upon the Applicant; (2) that the Board grant it an exten-sion of time beyond that permitted in the Board 's November 5, 1979 "Order 1/
Relative to Discovery" within which to respond to the Applicant's November 7, 1979 objection to certain interrogatories; and (3) permission to withdraw 1
as counsel, on the grounds that the proceeding would be rendered meaningless, if the first two requests are not granted.
On November 15, the Board entered an "Order Relative to Discovery and Scheduling."
In this Order, the Board 1/ This Order, steaming from a prior conference call on this matter, provided that the Applicant file a statement of its position on the propriety of the untimely discovery request by November
? and that the Intervenor could file a response thereto by November 13.
0
accepted the Intervenor's late-filed discovery, cancelled the January 8, Q2 1980 hearing date in the proceeding, and extended the response date for outstanding discovery requests to which there is no objection.
The Board also indicated that it would await the parties'esponses to the Intervenor's pre-sent motion for an extension of time.
DISCUSSION The first relief sought,
- namely, acceptance of the late discovery, was granted by the Board in its November 15 Order.
llith regard to the second relief sought, an extension of time within which to respond to the Applicant's objections to certain interrogatories, the Staff interposes no objection given the Board's cancellation of the hearing date in this matter.
Presumptively, this "response" 3/
would take the form of a motion to compel which, in turn, could lead to an orderly resolution of the disputed discovery.
Having interposed no objection to Intervenor's request for an extension, the Staff expresses no opinion on coun-sel for Intervenor 's request to withdraw if-not permitted additional time to respond.
At the same time, the Staff believes that the Board should judge the requested extension on its merits alone and not be influenced by the liti-gation strategy of counsel.
2/ At one point in the Order, the Board states it now "agrees" with the Staff that it is "inappropriate" to establish a hearing date and a date.for the submission of testimony.
In its September 17 response to the Applicant s September 4 motion to adopt a prehearing and hearing schedule in this pro-
- ceeding, the Staff supported a December 4 date on the then admitted conten-tions.
The Staff reserved opinion on the acceptability of a hearing date on additional contentions then proposed for admission.
Certain of these additional contentions were admitted in the Board's September 25 "Order Relative to Contentions and Discovery."
3/ See lO C.F.R. 52.740(f).
41 CONCLUSION In light of the above, the Staff has no objection to permitting the Intervenor an additional ten days within which to seek to compel answers to interroga-tories for which there are outstanding objections.
Respectfully submitted, Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at, Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of November, 1979.
Il
UNITED STATES OF At'ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO,'1MISS ION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
3 and 4)
Docket Nos.
50-250 50-251 (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repair)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME... REQUEST.
FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND RE(UEST FOR HEARING" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indi-cated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 27th day of November, 1979.
- Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.. Erwneth A. Luebke Atomic'Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic.Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.
W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad 5 Toll 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
+Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
+Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
- Steel, Hector 5 Davis Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Bruce S.
- Rogow, Esq.
Nova Law School 3301 College Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Steven C. Goldberg ounsel for NRC Staff
0
'1 l~