ML20050A804
| ML20050A804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Eilperin S, Gotchy R, Kohl C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204020288 | |
| Download: ML20050A804 (2) | |
Text
. -
1 4
gs# MG i
d
'g UNITED STATES
[ )
,, 'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,3 g / '
J
C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o, N $[#.f March 31, 1982 I
Stephen F. Eilperin, Chairman Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washingtop, DC 20555 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomc Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission g,
h~
Washington, DC 20555
' Q.
a w
.s In the Matter of T
4 /
'M I
Qg.p., /Sg COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 1
g t
jf J* f
.' s (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455 g/
Dear Appeal Board Members:
On March 23, 1982, the Rockford League of Women Voters (League) filed a brief in support of its exceptions to the Licensing Board's October 27, 1981 and January 27, 1982 (reconsideration) Orders dismissing the League from the proceeding for its noncompliance with discovery orders.
The I
NRC Staff did not take a position on the discovery dispute between the Applicant and the League which underlay these orders nor did the Staff take a position on the League's motion for reconsideration before the Licensing Board. Accordingly, the Staff does not intend to take a position on or file a brief in response to the present exceptions unless the Appeal Board would deem it helpful to do so. This should not be construed as a reflection of a position for or against the exceptions.
A considerable portion of the League's brief (as in its pleadings below) is devoted to a discussion of agreements purportedly reached between counsel for the League and the Applicant in this and other proceedings relative to discovery. The Stdf has no direct knowledge of any such agreements and cannot reconciin :ny difficulties which may exist between optosing counsel or their impor..
One matter, however, though unrelated to the merits of the exceptions, bears Staff comment. Specifically, the League appears to suggest that the Staff was/is obligated to respond to " discovery" served by the League on March 12,1980.
As Staff counsel explained in a November 13, 1981 letter to the Licensing Board, this is not the case.
This " discovery" request preceded the Licensing Board's December 19, 1980 Memorandum designating i
9204020288 820331
}M 7 7
$DRADOCK05000
% y ny-4
e f
- lie writerations admittec as r.6tters ii. controversv in this precroc'4rirt 0
a r r' v.r e, Ferce, inpemissibir. Fee 10 CFR ! 2.74'(b)(4). The Licensing boarc agrccd.
Tre knuary 77, 1982 Poard Order at 3.
Formal discoverj (fir; r.c f cerrre-a until the Boarr"s Decerber 19, 1980 thirr c r a r dur:. As *lv 'icansino Board reirted out in its January 27, 1982 Order, the Leagua's "discr6' cry" reauest was not pursued thereciter.
See Order at L.
ir thet ver e reoard, unlike tbn d+reticr. uliicli obtains here, there was no diset,ver r rder direr.ted acainst the F+e f v'ith wl-ici it foilt i to comply.
Sir.cr rr ly f:&
i...
Stevan C. Goldberc Coursel 'cr URL Stat t cc service list l
l l