ML19290B823

Ack Receipt of NRC 791120 Response to Applicant Request for Dismissal of Intervenor Tx Pirg.No Objection to Granting Extension to Tx Pirg.Intervenor Mccorkle Should Be Dismissed,Due to Failure to Answer Interrogatories

ML19290B823
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/05/1979
From:	Newman J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Cheatum E, Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7912140179
Download: ML19290B823 (3)

Text

-

LAW OFFICES LOWENSTEIN, NEwMAN. REIS, AXELHAD & TOLL s O 2 5 CO N N E CTICUT AVE N U E, N. W.

.. . . . ? L o. . , S T , , ,

w e '~ = ~.o c.2 = 3e

' "' 2o2 882-8* "

"""DC.

.Av A . c ,1o DaveO n. TOLL et A f M L E E N M. SMEA sA SO v . ~ .. - ? . J .

E G#EGORY SARNES MsCMat t A. Bault e DEBOmAM L. S t e N ST E s m ALSEATV,CARR JW 4Cetaf M. CuLp PtYEN G.FLvteN W8LLI AM J. F R A N . L' %

FREDEmec 9 C ear DOvGLASO OpCEN December 5, 1979 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d}

Washington, D. C. 20555 .

,7,%- _

Mr. Gustave Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board t -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1IC - I3[3 >[t Washington, D. C. 20555 ( __,,, y % m,,,y <[6 sam Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum /,,A.

N //

i-Route 3, Box 350A V ,y s &

Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 *ilh' Re: Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-466 Gentlemen:

Applicant has received the NRC Staff's Response dated November 20, 1979, to Applicant's Motion For Dismissal of TexPirg. The Staff oppos,es application of the ultimate sanction of dismissal but admits that TexPirg has created

" substantial confusion" as to the persons who have knowledge of the areas covered by the issues in this proceeding, and suggests that the Board require TexPirg "to identify, within a reasonable period of time, the person or persons having substantive technical knowledge in the subject area covered by each TexPirg contention." (Staff Response, p. 4).

1574 204 nic140

• LOW E N MT E IN, N EW M A N H E t s, A X E l.H A D & IOI.t.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Gustave Linenberger Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum December 5, 1979 Page Two The Applicant disagrees with the argument set forth in the Staff response and believes that TexPirg is in contempt of the Board's July 12, 1979, Order which directed TexPirg to resubmit its answers to Applicant's first End second set of interrogatories signed under oath by a person with knowledge of the answers. Board's Order, p. 3. Moreover, we believe that TexPirg's conduct, as chronicled in our motion to dismiss, clearly warrants the sanction of dismissal as a party to this proceeding. However, in the interest of expediting this proceeding while at the same time arriving at some solution to the discovery problem created by TexPirg, the Applicant would have no objection to the Board adopting the Staff's suggested procedure with the following additional requirements:

1. TexPirg should be required, within ten days of service of the Board's Order, to identify each person who answered each c.nd every interrogatory in whole or in part;

2. The Board's Order of November 19, 1979, provides that the deadline for conclusion of discovery on certain previously admitted contentions is December 5, 1979. The Board's Order should provide that during the course of depositions to be taken by February 20, the final deadline for all discovery, Applicant may inquire into any TexPirg contention without regard to the December 5 deadline. This will avoid the necessity of having to take depositions twice of the same people; and

3. The Board should make it clear that if Mr. Scott is designated by TexPirg in accordance with the Staff's suggestion, then Mr. Scott may not refuse, on grounds of privilege, to answer deposition questions related to any ,

contentions as to which he is so designated. 7

• / The Applicant does not waive its right to challenge Mr.

Scott's ability to appear as both counsel and as a witness.

1574 205

LOW ENST E I N, N F.W M A N I{ EI N. AX E LH A n & To r t.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Gustave Linenberger Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum December 5, 1979 Page Three Finally, Applicant notes that Intervenor McCorkle has not yet responded pursuant to the Board's Order of October 5, 1979, to the Applicant's second */ set of interrogatories and thus remains in contempt of that Order. Applicant therefore urges exercise of the sanction requested in its motion of November 9, 1979, to dismiss Intervenor McCorkle.

Sincerely yours,

< Jack R. Newman Attorney for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY JRN:so cc: All Parties

• / Ms. McCorkle filed untimely answers to Applicant's third set of interrogatories (dated September 19, 1979) on Nov-ember 13, 1979.

1574 206