ML19208A018
| ML19208A018 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1979 |
| From: | Axelrad M LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909120429 | |
| Download: ML19208A018 (8) | |
Text
.i r
~
"[
'C
- }l-)?;%
a
,a
/
'N yf
.Q 23 372 -
hks $Uh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
= t.u un" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p+;%,. s ja 4
g s n\\ q\\.
I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
Docket Nc. 50-344
~~ -~et al.
)
)
(Control Building Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE _OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 26, 1979, I served a copy of the Licensee's Statement Opposing the Request of Nina Bell and Consoli-dated Intervenors for Consolidation, by placing a true copy of said docunent in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Washington, D.C.
addressed as follows:
w.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Docketing and Service Section Division of Engineering, Office of the Secretary Architecture & Technology U.
3.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Wa;hington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, OK 97074 (Original & 20 copies)
Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Columbia County Courthouse 1229 - 41st Street Law Library, Circuit Court Room Los Alamos, NM 87544 St. Helens, OR 97051 941 202 fff 9 09120
]
Joseph R.
Gray, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licansing Counsel for NRC Staff Appeal Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms. Nina Bell Ronald W. Joh =
.1, Esq.
728 S.
E.
26th Street Corporate Attorney Portland, OR 97214 Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W.
Salmon Street Mr. Eugene Rosolie Portland, OR 97204 Coalition for Safe Power 215 S.
E.
9th Avenue Richard M.
Sandvik, Er,q.
Portland, OR 97214 Frank W.
Ostrander, Jr.
Counsel for Oregon Department Mr. David B. McCoy of Energy 348 Hussey Lane 500 Pacific Building Grants Pass, OR 9752E 520 S. W.
Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Mr. John A.
Kullberg Route One William W.
Kinsey, Esq.
Box 2500 Bonneville Power Administration Sauvie Island, OR 97231 1002 N.
E.
Holladay Portland, OR 97232 Ms. C.
Gail Parson P.O.
Box 2932 Dr. Hcrold I.
Laursen Kodiak, AK 99615 1520 N.
W.
13th Corvallis, OR 97330
//
/ $ 7/ 2 July 26, 1979 h15ert V.
Carr, Jr.
//
Lowenstein, Newman, s,
4 Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.
C.
20036 (202-862-8400) no7
'j 4 i LGJ r
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-344
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO
)
(Control Building Proceeding) et _al.
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
)
LICENSEE 'S STATEMENT OPPOSING THE REQUEST OF NINA BELL AND CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS FOR CONSOLIDATION Portland General Electric Company (Licensee) hereby submits its statement opposing the July 15, 1979, / request of Nina Bell and Consolidated Intervenors (CI) that their intervention be consolidated with that of the other intervenors in this pro-ceeding, Eugene Rosolie, pro se, and the Coalition For Safe Power (CFSP).
For the reasons set forth belcw, Licensee opposes the consolidation requested by CI and reasserts Licen-see's request that CI be dismissed from this proceeding.
On July 13 Licensee filed a motion to dismiss CI from this
- /
Though the letter signed by Ms. Bell is dated July 15, the envelope in which it was received by Licensee's counsel in Washington is postmarked July 21.
nnp 1
cl li i LU t
. proceeding for refusal to cooperate in the discovery process /
in which it discussed in detail the pattern of conduct con-sistently followed by CI in Phase II of this proceecing.
To summarize, despite specific instructions from the Board on CI's duties and obligations with respect to discovery and clear warnings that if proper responses to discovery requests were not furnished the Board would impose sanctions, CI has failed to respond to Licensee's leg cimate discovery requests.
koreover, CI is in clear default of an order, issued by the Board pursuant to 2.740, to respond to Licensee's interrogatories.
Because of CI's willful refusal to partici-pate in the discovery process, Licensee has not obtained from CI the information sought through its interrogatories which is essential for Licensee's timely preparation for trial with respect to CI's contentions.
By its consolidation request CI seeks simply to have the Board move it and its contentions under the umbrella of CFSP, so that it may continue as a party to the proceeding under another name.
Presumably, CI intends that by such action it, and its contentions, will survive in this proceeding, notwith-standing CI's willful failure to comply with the Commission's discovery rules.
If the Board grants CI's request, t"c effect of its action will be to allow CI to retain pa_c',
status while
_,/
The URC Staff has also filed a motion (July 12) to dismiss CI for refusal to cooperate in the discovery process.
nnG L
M
. avoiding the discharge of a party's obligations.
Suca a result has no place in an NRC proceeding.
Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants)
LBP-75-67, 2 NRC 813, 815-317 (1975).
Licensee again urges the Board, in accordance with its July 13, 1979 Motion, to dismiss CI, and its contentions, from this proceeding.
If, notwithstanding the arguments set forth in Licensee's dismissal motion, the Board does not dismiss CI as a party from this proceeding, it should grant CI's consolidation recuest, subject, however, to two essential conditions:
(1)
For the reasons set fo.th in Licensee's dismissal motion, CI's contentions should be dismissed from the proceed-ing and CI should be limited to the CFSP contentions.
To allow CI to retain any of its issues in this proceeding by shifting to the CFSP umbrella would frustrate the purpose of the Commission's discovery rules and would reward CI for its willful refusal to cooperate in the discovery process and to comply with the Board's order.
Licensee will be as adversely affected in its trial preparation with respect to CI's con-tentions if CI participates as a " consolidated party" as it was affected while CI was a separate party.
(2)
CI's participation in this proceeding as a con-solidated party should be subject to every limitation that has become applicable to CFSP's participation.
For example, CI should be bound by the responses that CFSP has prev]ously submitted to interrogatories filed by the Licensee and the 941 206 M
NRC Staff, and the scope of cross-examination by the consoli-dated CFSP-CI party would be limited accordingly.
Unless CFSP is so bound, the other parties would suddenly find tcemselves in a situation where the. discovery to date with respect to the CFSP contentions might be essentially wasted since CI's responses to previous interrogatories answered by CFSP would be unknown.
Such a result would be wholly inequitable, would prevent timely complerion of discovery, and would permit CI to benefit from its past failures to cooperate in the dis-covery process.
Accordingly, Licensee respectfully requests this Board to deny CI's consolidation request and to dismass CI as a party to this proceeding.
However, should the Board decide not to disgiss CI as a party, its consolidation request should be granted subject to the two conditions set forth above.
Respectfully submitted, RONALD W.
JOHNSON, ESQ.
Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company 121 S.
W.
Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 MAURICE AXELRAD, ESQ.
ALBERT V.
- CARR, JR.,
ESQ.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
%l bhN
/
L
. W(
By Maurice Axelrad
,1 Dated at Washingtrn, D.C.
This 26th day of July, 1979
/ f!
70/
Of1 m m =-