ML19338E610
| ML19338E610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | DOHERTY, J.F., TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8010030448 | |
| Download: ML19338E610 (4) | |
Text
\\
)
=
A p
UNITED SIWIES OF AMERICA NUCIZAR REGUIAIORY CGtESSION OCr "a
DE ATCHIC SAFEN AND LICENSDC BOARD 2
p %
')
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chainran A
p/
f Dr. E. Leonard Cheatun, Meser g
44 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Panber
/,
g In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSION LIGEING AND POWER O'NPAtW
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP 1
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, )
Unit 1)
)
c%c ORDER 77 (October 1,1980) 2 fpyg 1.
On September 15, 1980, Intervenor John Doherty filed a Motion For Additional Time To Answer Applicant's and Staff's Motions For Simmry Disposi-tion. Therein, Mr. Doherty requests a fort.y-four (44) day extension of time from October 2 to Novernber 15, 1980 within which to file his replies to Applicant's and Staff's notions for stemry disposition which had been filed respectively on August 4 and August 8,1980.
In its Response of Septenber 25, 1980, the Staff states there is some cerit to several of Mr. Doherty's asserted justifications in support of his notion, but suggests that time be extended only to Occober 23, 1980. In its Response of September 25th, the Applicant urges that the instar.t notion be denied since Mr. Doherty failed to establish good cause and to evidence clearly the reasons for requesting a forty-four day ext:nsion.
1/
We note that between August 14 and September 22,1980 (thirty-nine days), Me. Doherty has filed seven replies to fifteen cotions for sumary 1/ During the prehearing conference on August 13, 1980, the Board directed that affected Intervenors would have between August 14 and October 2,1980 within -ddch to reply to Applicant's and Staff's uctions for sumarf disposition (See Order of August 21, 1980).
t anooggqq 9 ],
o disposition. Thus, within that time period, he has filed on average a reply every five-and-one-half days. This average em sts with the five day period Mr. Doherty earlier had stated he muld need to prepare each reply.
(Doherty Motion For Scheduling the Prehearing Conference filed on July 14,1980).
Further, a note that Staff acknowledges that, as of Septed>er 25th, several responses to Mr. Dcherty's interrogatories remained outstarvhg, that those responses would be filed within the week, and that accordingly it would not object to the time being extended to October 23, 1980. Moreover, while it appears from an at*=^=nt to Applicant's response that Mr. Doherty has not timely availed himself of the vegvu.cnity to review docuents in Applicant's
]
down-town office which had been referenced in Applicant's motions fcr s==7 disposition, it is clear, as is evidenced by another attachment to Applicant's response, that as of Septenber 11, 1980, certain parts of the " Reed Report" j
have not been produced for Mr. Doherty's review. Applicant's letter to Mr.
Doherty dated September 23, 1980 also clearly reflects that although Mr. Doherty had requested on Septenber 2 to inspect certain parts of the " Reed Report",
these parts were not made available until September 23rd.
1 We agree with the Staff that, inasmuch as the ev4 dan ~4a 7 hearing on environmental issues only will begin either on December 1, 1980 or in the second 2/
week of January,1981' our granting of an extension cf time for the filing of Mr. Doherty's replies to motions seeking sumary disposition of certain of his j
health and safety contentions will not delay the comencement of the first phase of the hearing. We also agree with Staff that the number of days granted should be limited in order that the Board, prior to the second phase of the hearing, r
2/ The Board, within'a few days, will issue an order which, inter alia, will rix the comencement date of the hcaring.
will have adequate time, in this exceedingly cacplex case, to review and adjudge the notions for stmmary disposition and replies directed to health and safety contentions.
Accordingly, we grant the instant notion in part and deny it in part.
Mr. Dohert'J shall have until Nov mber 4, 1980, within which to serve the remainder of his replies to Applicant's and Staff's motions for stumary disposi-tion.
In order to assist the Board in its timely review, he shall serve each reply when ecupleted. No further extensions of time will be granted to Mr.
Doherty.
2.
On September 12, 1980, within its Motion For Sucmary Disposition of
- 43 (AC8), TexPirg requested an extension of tim to file notions for smmary 3/
disposition. Despite " heroic" efforts and because of the unavailability of several of its assistants, TexPirg asserts that it is unable to file several more motions for stumary disposition by the due date of September 12, 1980.-4 In responses of September 25, 1980, Applicant and Staff oppose the granting of the instant motion.
We note that TexPirg fails to specify the number of days of extension requested. We could not and will not grant such a request for an open-ended 3/ On August 6, on Sept aber 12, and, in an undated submission received on IIeptember 16, 1980, TexPirg moved for st= mary disposition with respect to three of its contentions.
4/ In passing, we note TexPirg objects to our ruling during the prehearing conference on August 13, 1980 that intervening parties must file notions for stamary disposition, if any, on or before September 12, 1980, because the Board made no showing of good cause for " shortening" [ sic] the forty-five day period prior to a hearing for the filing of motions for stumary disposition.
In the first place, TexPirg's attorney inexcusably was not in attendance when the Board was considering and ruling upon the September 12th due date. Further, contrary to a 2.752(c) TexPirg did not file such an objection within five days after the service of the Board's Order of August 21, 1980 which memorinlized l
. extension of tim because, to allow it, would be to indefinitely delay the ultim te decision in this case. Further, the untion is defective in that TexPirg fails to notify the Board exactly baa many more notions for sumary disposition it intends to file after Sepres er 12th and thus does not assist the Board in detaminig the number of days that the due date should be extended.
In fairness to TexPirg, however, we grant in part and deny in part the instant notion. TexPirg shall have until October 8, 1980 within which to file notions for sumary disposition. TexPirg will telephone Mr. Copeland, who will arrange to secure a copy of the notion (s) and expedite delivery to Staff's counsel. Applicant and/or Staff shall respond within twenty days after receipt of TexPirg's notion (s) and hand-deliver copies of these responses to the Board. No further extensions of tim will be granted to TexPirg.
EUR TF2 AlWIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
\\LDUla Sheldon J. Wodie, Esquire Cbnh-m
-)
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of October, 1980.
Footnote 4 (Continued):
said ruling.
In any event, the mrrrnth record in this case and the numerous contentions clearly reflect the absolute necessity for the Board to have adequate time to carefully review and rule upcu such notions in sufficient time prior to the first (environmental) and prior to the second (health and safety) phases of this hearing.
1