ML17340B136

Motion for Order Refusing Application for Summary Disposition or Alternatively for Continuance of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Disposition.Related Correspondence

ML17340B136
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	04/15/1981
From:	Chonin N CHONIN, N., ONCAVAGE, M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML17340B137	List: ML17340B136 ML17340B138 ML17340B140 ML17340B141
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8105040392
Download: ML17340B136 (4)

Text

3ZLA~a COHM<SPOHD.. H UNITED 'STKTL~P 7ZEFRA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO&MISSION ORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos.: 50-250-SP 50-251-SP FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 'COMPANY /Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Steam Generator Repairs).

Units Nos.: 3 and 4)

INTERVENOR MARK P. ONCAVAGE'S MOTION TO CONTINUE'R DENY SRSQRY."DISPOSITION CONES NOW, the Intervenor, by and through his undersigned attorney and moves this Board for an Order Refusing the Application for Summary Disposition or for a Continuance of the Time to Respond to the Motion for Summary Disposition and as grounds therefore would state:

1. That the Intervenor's attorney, Neil Chonin has attached an Affidavit which supports the Intervenor's-Motion,

2. That the Parties stipulated to a schedule which in and of itself should preclude this Board from ruling on any Summary Disposition Motion and requiring the Staff and the Licensee to go to trial on the merits as to all Contentions.

3. That the Staff and Licensee agreed to a discovery cutoff date of April 15, and the Staff and Licensee has filed 8 Motions for Summary Disposition knowing full well that discovery would follow from said Motions and that the Intervenor would be entitled to documents referred to in the Affidavits attached to said Motions.

That: based on the Staff and Licensee's tactic of filing five Notions for Summary Disposition, it is apparent that no litigant could respond to these Motions until such time as discovery was had concerning the supporting documents relative to said Motion. The Intervenor would be entitled to have it's own experts examine the supporting ~gpss documents so that opinions could be formed contrary to those opinions of the experts utilized by the Staff and the Licensee.

5. That to require the Intervenor to Respond to 5 Notions for Summary Disposition and to argue .the Motions for Summary Disposition on April 27th and 28th when the Intervenor's Requests for Production are outstanding would constitute a denial of due process of..law to the Intervenor.

g P/

1 Cl 41

~l

'rl J

6. That the Intervenor,'s time for responding to Contentions 2 and 6 fall beyond the date that=the Intervenor is required to argue the Notion for'ummary Disposition in that the Board has scheduled hearings on the Notions for April 27 and 28 when the discovery responses will not be available.

7. That if the Disposition then certainly Board does

.

intend to Rule on emotions the Xnt'ervenor .should. have a for Summary right.to complete. discovery.

WHEREFORE, the Intervenor moves this Board fox an oxder refusing the Yotions fox Summary Dispositions or for an Order requiring the Intervenor to respond to all of the Notions for Summary Disposition after Requests fox Production have been .complied with.

DATED this 15th day of April, 1981.

LAW OFFICES, OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.

Counsel for Intevenor 1400 AmeriFirst Building 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33131.

BY:

N I'L CHONIN

g ~

'vlf

~ t