ML19289E748

Applicant'S Response to Tx Pirg'S Undated Motion to Postpone Further Pretrial Steps Except for Discovery.Urges Denial of Motion;Tx Pirg Does Not Offer Justification for Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19289E748
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/05/1979
From:	Copeland J, Newman J, Thrash C BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
NUDOCS 7905290068
Download: ML19289E748 (6)

Text

..

~.

+ '

>., ,. i. 4 :G ?.C oc h DC6T9 k' * - -

~

.x..O * . . '

~

.~.-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .e c C

I . . ,;

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N y'( , .

,,,,/

%'C . > ~ . - ,. y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N- . , -

In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO TEXPIRG

" MOTION TO POSTPONE FURTHER ACTION EXCEPT FOR DISCOVERY" Applicant files this response to the undated motion filed by TexPirg which seeks to delay further pre-trial steps in this proceeding.

Aside from references to the recent incident at Three-Mile Island, discussed below, all other reasons ad-vanced by TexPirg to delay this proceeding are restatements of concerns commonly faced by all litigants in NRC cases:

e.g., difficulty in obtaining expert witnesses; additional time to follow-up on matters identified during discovery; and, the ever present problem of fitting the heavy duties of a litigant before the NRC into the available time. None furnish any basis for any delay in this proceeding, much less justification for a delay "of at least 90 days and until the NRC and Congress complete their investigation of the Harrisburg accident."

Applicant believes that at the outset one must judge the credibility of TexPirg's arguments by considering 2043 352F 790529o068

the fact that TexPirg premises its request for relief on the representation that TexPirg consists of a group of "unfunded citizen intervenors." Moreover, TexPirg would have the Board apply less stringent standards to such citizen groups. There is nothing in prior rulings by the Commission that suggests that " citizen intervenors" are to be held to "less strict standards" where such intervenors are in fact represented by counsel.

In addition, it should be noted that TexPirg's "First Request for Production of Documents from Houston Lighting & Power" was filed on March 27, 1979, inexplicably delayed by almost 40 days following entry of the Board's order establishing a discovery schedule. TexPirg's first set of interrogatories was not filed until almost three weeks following the date of that order. As to assertions in the motion regarding Applicant's cooperation in discovery, all that need be said is that every discovery request has been responded to on time and that documents have been tendered to intervenors for inspection and copying in ac-cordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.741. To date, TexPirg has not inspected one single document tendered by the Applicant.-1/

1/ Counsel for TexPirg has taken the position that the Ap-plicant is obligated to send all requested documents to TexPirg, free of charge. Applicant is, of course, under no legal obli-gation to do so. Rather than forthrightly explaining its position in this regard, TexPirg has made the false and misleading representation that " Applicant has already refused to copy documents in its possession."

2045 355

TexPirg, citing actions taken by the ASLB with regard to new contentions and intervenors, argues that "there will be little, if any, delay caused by allowing addi-tional time for discovery for the original parties." It is impossible to square this assertion with TexPirg's request for a delay of 90 days and for some additional period after "NRC and Congress complete their review of the Harrisburg accident." This Board has, as it is obligated to do, im-posed reasonable limitations upon discovery and set the prehearing conference on the basis of a schedule consistent with its obligations to move the administrative process forward. Where " good cause" for additional discovery time has been apparent or urged upon it, the Board has been responsive. TexPirg's instant motion presents no such good cause for further extension of the time for completion of pretrial procedures, including discovery.

TexPirg would have the Board believe that its re-quest is based on the recent incident at Three-Mile Island:

It is certain that the NRC and Congress will be holding hearings, changing safety require-ments and regulations such that additional issues will need to be considered in this proceeding. Not only will the NRC Staff's time need to be spent in studying the accident and its resultant changes in requirements, but also it would be a waste of time to hold hearings or stop discovery, then be forced to repeat the process.

56 2

This statement is pure speculation, rendered even less persuasive by the fact that ACNGS is a Boiling Water Reactor and that there is no allegation, much less any showing, that ACNGS shares any substantial technical similarity to the Three-Mile Island facility.

In sum, what has happened is that TexPirg, as one of the " original parties", has failed to take advantage of the full time allowed for the conduct of discovery activities and now seeks to cover that failure in the publicity attendant on the Three-Mile Island incident.

The motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: J. M J jGrego and //

BAKER & BOTTS arles sh 3000 One Shell Plaza 00 One Sh Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W.

N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 Attorneys for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY 2(143 357 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & PCWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to TexPirg " Motion to Postpone Further Action Except for Discovery" in the above-captioned pro-ceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postag prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 6fA day of -

, 1979.

- 7 o Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. LeRoy Valicek, Mayor Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Hon. LeRoy Grebe Atomic Safety and Licensing County Judge, Austin County Board Panel P. O. Box 767 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bellville, Texas 77481 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Chase R. Stephens Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary of the Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. G.S. Nuclear Regulatory Baker & Botts Commission 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20006 -

2043 358

Steve Schinki, Esq.

Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 John F. Doher'i'

• • J8 1/2 Leeland Houston, Texas 77023 Madeline Bass Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Carro Hinderstein 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Brenda McCorkle 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 F. H. Potthoff, III 1814 Pine Village Houston, Texas 77080 Wayne E. Rentfro P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 James M. Scott, Jr.

8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 lbecew Grego C Ud landy 2g43 359