ML19209C134
| ML19209C134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1979 |
| From: | Conner T, Wetterhahn M CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER, MOORE & CORBER |
| To: | MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209C135 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910120024 | |
| Download: ML19209C134 (2) | |
Text
co f-ot NRC PUBLIC PDdT R00Af
~
4f3 g
N[g.
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC_.
T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dh Q
In the Matter of
)
)
4
/
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC
)
Docket No.50-35e n'
COMPANY, et al.
)
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT' S MOTIONS TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR CONTENTION 13 AND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE On August 24, 1979, thr; Miami Valley Power Project
(" Project") intervenor in the captioned proceeding, filed two motions related to Contention 13.
They were entitled
" Miami Valley Power Project's Motion for Full Disclosure,"
and " Miami Valley Power Pro' ject's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Contention 13."
Applicants, The Cincinnati Gas & Elec-tric Company, et al., oppose both motions.
With regard to the motion for full disclo'ure, Appli-cants believe it completely lacks any rerit.
The Project has not shown that che Applicants have not met their cbliga-tion to inform this Scard and parties of any matter which is required to be reported.
The Project is sent all amendments to the Application which describe the facility and any changes being made to it.
In addition, there is no outstand-ing informational request regarding Contention 13.
The request is devoid of any cubstance, fails to state what is sought, is subsumed by the motion to reopen discovery as discussed, infra, and should be denied.
m 7 91012 0 C ""
- d. '
I).6l.
With regard to the motion to reopen discovery, it is generally recognized that cost increases for nuclear power plants are the rule rather than the exception, and the cost figures will change over time.
In the circumstances, Ap-plicants do not feel that the Project has made a showing which would requirs reopening of discovery.
However, if the Board decides to reopen discovery with regard to Contention 13, because of the very linited nature of the discovery, and the status of the proceeding, it should 1.imit the time available, and the secpe of such discovery to new information relating to Contention 13.
The Board should make it clear that any reopening of discovery on this limited matter woul'd not signal an opportunity to explore existing matters which may now occur to intervenors and which have existed for the almost three year period discovery has been open.
In conclusion, discovery with regard to Contention 13 should not be reopened.
However, if it is, the Board should carefully control the scope and timing of discovery.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MCORE & CORBER N
. -; /
,/-
\\
y h
,J /-The2
[
J Troy B.
Conner, Jr.
O Mark J.
Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants September 7, 1979 l1A3 052