ML19209C136

Response in Opposition to Miami Valley Power Project 790824 Motion to Schedule Evidentiary Hearings During Evening Hours.Does Not Oppose Extension of Day Hours Into Evening. W/Certificate of Svc

ML19209C136
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	09/07/1979
From:	Conner T, Wetterhahn M CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER, MOORE & CORBER
To:
References
NUDOCS 7910120027
Download: ML19209C136 (6)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

THE CINC.TNNATI GAS & ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-358 COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Wm. H. Zinner Nuclear Power )

Station) )

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S MOTION FOR EVENING HOURS On 7;cgust 24, 1979, the Miami valley Power Project moved to schedule evidentiary hearings in the c aptioned proceeding during evening hours. As discussed below, Applicants, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al.,

oppose the motion.

A similar motion by the Project has already been 1/

denied by the Licensing Board. The Project has presented nothing new which compels the holding of evening sessions at the expense of day sessions.

This Licensing Board has bent over backwards in an effort to acccmmodate the attorneys for the Project.

Initially, during the course of the proceeding, it has juggled consideration of matters to suit the convenience of

_1/ Tr. 550.

j 4 c

7 910120 CDC[}7

the Project's attorneys. Secondly, it has permitted the Project as well as the other intervenors to be represented 2/

by lay members during certain phases of the proceeding. ~

Thirdly, the Pro]ect is represented by at least five at-torneys who have rotated their attendance during the hear-ing. As a result, there is no hardship on any one of the Project's counsel. To the contrary, more than one Miami Valley Power Project attorney has been present at the same time for most of the twelve days of hearings.

It is simply not practical to hold hearings only during the evening hours. The Licensing Board (and counsel for the Staff and Applicants) must travel to Cincinnati for the convenience of the intervenors and stay for the duration of the session. It would be ludicrous to require the Board to sit idly by during the day waiting for an abbreviated session during the evening hours. The same may be said of the court reporters and witnesses. In addition, experience has shown the difficulty in making logistical arrangements for evening sessions at the Court House.

Hearings during the evening hours are not productive.

First, the number of hours reasonably available to hold hearings are limited. This proceeding has moved at a snail's pace. The limitation of the number of hours in each

_2/ Memorandum and Order Concerning Intervenors' Requests to Utili'e Lay Representatives dated June 13, 1979.

!l43 hbd

hearing day would slow the pace even more. I'c is also naive to expect that the Board and parties could perform up to their capacity during the evening hours, pai-ticularly if the attorneys for the Project seek to attempt to pursue their

" livelihood" during the daytime hours.

As we have stressed in the past and as the Board has 3/

recognized, having elected to participate, some sacrifices on the part of the intervenors' attorneys will be necessary during the course of the proceeding. As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has stated, "the right of partici-pation in an administrative proceeding carries with it the obligation of a party to assist in ' making the system work' and to aid the agency in discharging the statutory obligations 4/

with which it is charged."-- The absurdity of the Miami Valley Power Project motion is apparent if one considers the reception it would re,eive in any court.

This response should not be interpreted as opposing the holding of evening sessions in this proceeding. The Ap-plicants have consistently proposed extending the hours of the hearing into the evening and have also suggested Saturday sessions as a means for moving ahead. These extended hours, together with a focused cross-examination by inter-venor's counsel, instead of the meandering examination seen 3/ Id. at 5.

4/ Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAa-123, 6 AEC 331, 332 (1973).

fl!3 t

03b

-4 to date, would significantly shorten the number of days of hearing and limit intervenors' counsels' absence from their other pursuits.

For these reasons, the motion to schedule evidentiary hearings solely during the evening haurs should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MOORE & CORBER

\

~W%E ? -

QOf h '

Troy D Conner, Jr. "

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants September 7, 1979 l}!3 4

056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMB 1ISSION In the Matter of )

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )

)

(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to Miami valley Power Project's Motions to Reopen Discovery for Contention 13 and for Full Disclosure," and " Applicant's Re-sponse to Miami Valley Power Project's Motion for Evening Hours," both dated September 7, 1979, in the captioned matter, were served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 7th day of September, 1979: -

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Ecard Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Scard Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Licensing Scard Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Counsel for the NRC Staff Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Chairman, Atomic Safety and Director Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Ccamission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William J. Moran, Esq.

Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Cincinnati Gas & Electric Appeal Board e 'cany U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post "fice Sox 960 Commission Cincin.ati, Ohio 45201 Washington, D.C. 20555 t145 057

Mr. Chase R. Stephens Leah S. Kosik, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Attorney at Law Office of the Secretary 3454 Cornell Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John D. Woliver, Esq.

Clermont County Community William Peter Heile, Esq. Council Assistant City Solicitor Box 181 City of Cincinnati Batavia, Ohio 45103 Box 214 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Robert Hofstadter 312 Lee Street Evanston, Illinois 60262 A

I t) i

'Mar . Metterhahn 1143 058