ML19208D872
| ML19208D872 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1979 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Schink D, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX |
| References | |
| SECY-79-64, NUDOCS 7910010256 | |
| Download: ML19208D872 (1) | |
Text
.
yf o,
UNITED STATES
- .E
...gd./.9f',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
o, h!.
E WASMNGToN, D. C. 20555
,o August 8, 1979
- see Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licesning Board Atomic Safety arfd Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David R. Schink M
S Department of Oceanography 90[$9 \\S79 'p\\
//
Texas A & M University
/5 College Station, Texa; 77840
- I --
EUG
.' " 7 3
. M, w."
In the Matter of Detroit Edison Company D
(Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2) c-Docket No. 50-341 m
w Centlemen:
We do not intend to file a respoase to " Applicant's Consoliidated Motion to Compel Discovery and for Summary Disposition of Contentica 11" dated July 19, 1979; During a telephone conference on July 26, 1979, the Staff was informed by Citizens for Employment and Energy ("CEE") that it vonM withdraw contention 11 making the Applicant's request for summary disposition snoot.
Withdrawal of contention 11 was confirmed in "CEE's Response to Applicant's Motion for Suc=ary Disposition and Request for Clarification of Discovery and Hearing Schedule" (CEE's Response) dated August 2, 1979.
Accordingly, the Staff deems response to the Applicant's request for summary disposition unnecessary.
The Applicant's motion requesting the Board to issue an order compelling CEE to respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, was directed to the adequacy of CEE's interrogatory responses of July 9, 1979.
Since the motica involves discovery between the Applicanc and CEE, the Staff takes r.c position on the matter and does not intend to file any further response with regard to this motion.
Finally, we note that CEE's Response contains a request for " additional time for discovery". We view this as a motion for a change in the discovery schedule set forth in the Board's Order of March 21, 1979. We wilI. respond to this motion within the period of time allowed the Staff by the Commission's " Rules of Practice".
Sincerely,
',g.. g i
v Henry U.~[Mc'Gurren
.'/, -f Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List
,l D
D o
i
~
46
{ [- ]- Q"'
7910010 1053 320
. +.
- p nauq g
p UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMT.ilSSION e '-Q ;-,
o h.k,D 9
WASHINGTON, D. c. 20555
/
August 8, 1979 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon.
Atomic Safety and Licesning Board Ato=ic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 M
S Dr. David R. Schink Department of Oceanography g$$
\\
Te:4as A & M University
//
College Station, Texr.s 77840
, }
c3 \\$76 Y 'p G; s AUG W
7 In the Master of Detroit Edison Company
$5 (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2)
Docket No. 50-341 os Centlemen:
We do not intand to file a response to " Applicant's Consolidat:ed Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sur: mary Disposition of Contention 11"' dated July 19, 1979. During a telephcne conference on July 26, 1979, the Staff was informed by Citizens for Employment and Energy ("CEE") that it would w-ithdraw contention 11 making the Applicant's request for summary disposition moott. Withdrawal of contention 11 was confirmed in "CEE's Response to Applicant's Motion for Succary Disposition and Request for Clarification of Discovery and Hearing Schedule" (CEE's Response) dated August 2, 1979.
Accordingly, the Staf:f deems response to the Applicant's request for sum tary disposition unnecessar y.
The Applicant's motion requesting the Board to issue an order compelling CEE to respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, was directed to the adequacy of CEE's interrogatory responses of July 9, 1979. Since the notion involves discovery between the Applicant and CEE, the Staff takes no position on the matter and does aot intend to #ile any further response with : regard to this motion.
Finally, we note that CEE's Response contains a request for "'. additional time for discovery". We view this as a motion for a change in the: discovery schedule set forth in the Board's Order of March 21, 1979. We will respond to this motion within the pe~riod of time allowed the Staff by the Cotcmission's " Rules of Practice".
Sincerely, i:
sp v
Henry J.lMdGurren fn-f ~
~: _
Counsel for SRC Staff cc:
Service List rg 72}
fff g m g.
n
..