ML19260E053
| ML19260E053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130213 | |
| Download: ML19260E053 (3) | |
Text
.
co CD 4
UNITED STATES OF AFERICA 90 s y
D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
9
'I g
j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g (s I #'b Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Glenn O. Bright, Member In the Matter of CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-358 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES (January 31, 1980)
On January 8, 1980, the Applicants filed a motion for dismissal of Miami Valley Power Project's Contention 13, for failure of MVPP to respond to discovery.
MVPP has not answered this motion.
The Staff opposes it but suggests that we order MVPP to respond to the interrogatories.
We adopt this latter approach but also find that one of the interrogatories need not be answered.
MVPP's Contention 13 asserts that the Applicants are "finan-cially unqualified to operate the [Zimmer] plant because of escalating costs."
On November 21, 1979, the Applicants submitted interrogatories to MVPP on this subject (Applicant's Seventh Set of Interrogatories To MVPP).
Those interrogatories were submitted in accord with the time frame for discovery established by our Order of October 1, 1979, at pp. 4-5.
Pursuant to that Order, 8002yggg(3
. answers to the interrogatories should have been furnished to the Applicants within 14 days of service of the interrogatories, or by December 10, 1979.
Apparently no such answers have been received.
Moreover, MVPP has not sought a protective order for any of the interrogatories, as provided for by 10 CFR 52.740(c).
The Staff points out that 10 CFR $2.740(f) requires that a party serving discovery and unsatisfied with the response must apply to the Licensing Board for an crder to compel discovery prior to moving for dismissal.
Although this is usually the practice which should be followed, we do not view it as binding in every situation.
Indeed, with regard to MVPP's Contention 17, we followed a somewhat different procedure.
See Our Orders dated October 1 and 23, 1979.
Nonetheless, in the cutrent situation, we see no good reason not to first direct MVP5 to answer the Applicants' interrogatories prior to dccidir.g whether Contention 13 should be dismissed for default (see 10 CFR 52.707) or whether some other form of relief should be imposed.
In examining the Applicants' interrogatories, however, we have determined that one is inappropriate and need not be answered.
Specifically, interrogatory 9 seeks the identification of individuals who participated in the drafting of MVPP's interrogatories to the Applicants and Staff dated November 8, 1979.
Those interrogatories are signed by MVPP's counsel, but to the extent that other counsel may have participated, they need not be identified.
Others pro-viding technical assistance to MVPP's counsel would be encompassed by interrogatories 3 or 6.
Accordingly, the Applicants' motion to dismiss Contention 13 is denied.
MVPP is directed to answer the Applicants' Seventh Set of Interrogatories, dated November 21, 1979, with the exception of interrogatory 9.
Such answers should be furnished within 14 days of the service of this Order.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING P0ARD 3.. (,
le)
.ce z/
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 31st day of January,1980.