ML19289E925

Memo in Opposition to Applicant'S Motion to Require Response to Fourth Set of Interrogatories

ML19289E925
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	03/13/1979
From:	Rigberg S MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT
To:
Shared Package
ML19289E924	List: ML19289E923 ML19289E925 ML19289E940
References
NUDOCS 7905290468
Download: ML19289E925 (4)

Text

.. ..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , p7L 9 -

In the Eltter of  :

0 %@1 9 ete .

dT

/

THE CINCINNATI GAS K. ELECTRIC DOCKET NO. 50-358 81.g COMPANY, et al.

(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Station)  :

MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 70 APPLICANT'S MOTION 'IO REQUIRE RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES Applicant's motion is not wel? taken and should be denied for the following reasons:

The time to challenge the standing of the Miami Valley Power Project (herein after, " Project") is long past. 10CFR2.714(c) provides that a party has 5 days to file its answer to a petition for leave to intervene.

If the Applicant wanted to challenge the Project's right to intervene, that was the time to do it -- not now.

The Applicant bases its motion on information it obtained f rom the Project's answer to question 1 of Applicant's second set of interrogatories.

L.at question is as follows:

" List the full name and addre:J of each person who vill represent, be a spokesman for, or conduct examinatian or cross examination of any witnesses during the course of this proceeding for the Project and his position with or relation to the Project."

In its ruling on the Project's objections concerning these interrogatories, the Atomic Safety and Lies!nsing Board ruled that questions 1 through 3 need not be answered. This being the case, Applicant is in no position to use this information now in any way. In any event, by no stretch of the imagination could the Project's response to question 1 of Applicant's second set of inter-rogatories be used to even suggest that the Project is not a legitimate intervenor

^ ' 3 309

.,go52909ff

or that it is not composed of customers of the Dayton Power and Light, and centered in the Dayton area. The mere fact that those individuals who will represent, be a spokesman for, or conduct examination or cross examination of any witnesses during the course of this. proceeding for the Project are not from the Dayton area suggests nothing with regard to the issues addressed in Applicant's motion.

Applicant is attempting to use this flimsy excuse to harrass the members of the Project, prevent the Project from presunting important information at the hearing, and waste more of the Commission's valuable time.

For these reasons, the Project would ask the Board to overrule the Applicant's motion to require the Project to respond to Applicant's fourth set of interrogatories.

Respectfully submitted, MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT BY S~J B&.

Saul Rigber/J f Member, Miami Valley Power Project 535 Howell Apartment #3 Cincinnati, Ohio 45220

'""3

i. . 310 2.