ML20055B129
| ML20055B129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1982 |
| From: | Wilt D SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE, WILT, D.D. |
| To: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207200386 | |
| Download: ML20055B129 (1) | |
Text
'
,e l
1 DANIEIIhb. WIL monsev Ano cousseton 47 utSNRC s...
July it, 1982
[82*d 19" N] '44 r.o.nox< e g
m.zveu.w. o,no u,-
e: *-O m ct SECRETAP (Eles 245s.06777 D00KEUNG & SEMCE Peter B. Bloch, Chairman BRANCH
/sto:ic Safety & Licensing Board
~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: In the matter of:
Cleveland Electric Illumina:ing Co.
Docket Nos.
50-440-OL 50-441-OL
Dear Chairman Bloch:
First of all, I would like to report a change in my address and telephone number which is given above. Would all parties please change my address on the Service List.
The remaining part of this letter will consist of my notes on the conference call that was placed on July 13, 1982. Participa:Ing in this conference, were Chairman Bloch, and I assume the other members of the panel, Mr. Silberg; Mr. Vogler; Ms. Hiatt and the undersigned. The purpose of the call was to discuss the Motion filed by Applicant to Dismiss Sunflower's Motion to Compel Discovery. Af ter discussion, Judge Bloch denied this Motion. Judge Bloch then established the following standards for future Motions to Compel:
- 1) 4.he regulatory ten day, period to file the Motion; i
- 2) an automatic five day extension of the above period;
- 3) an additional five day extension with consent of the parties involved; x.
- 4) any additional time to file the Motion can then be granted only by the Board.
Mr. Silberg was granted two weeks frota July 13, 1982 to file a response to Sunflower's Motion to Compel. Staf f was granted five days af ter that to file a response.
The parties were then directed by the Board to begin negotiations on the following matters:
- 1) a deadline on discovery;
- 2) a deadline on discovery on newly adcitted contentions;
- 3) proposed dates for the hearings;
- 4) proposed deadlines for filing proposed findings of f act.
Judge Bloch suggested that proposed findings of f act should present reaso'ned findings that comment on the f acts from the standpoint of the law and regulations. Parties are permitted to present alternative lines of reasoning.
The conference was then concluded.
Very trul
C p503 DanielD. hilt