ML19340D213
| ML19340D213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8012290327 | |
| Download: ML19340D213 (7) | |
Text
.
N m
UNITED SGTES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGUIAICRY COWISSION 1
ce,g n ;
~h 4 ggg g 71980 > p\\
t=re Alm IC SAFEIY AND LICENSIM BOARD p
Office of W %sem
'q Before Administrative Judges:
Docketing a Sheldon J. NolEe, Chair:an
/
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum yI Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
EERVEC CEC 171980
)
In the Matter of
)
HOUSION LIGEING AND POWER CTPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
'N N.
)
~
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit I)
)
Decs2er 16, 1980
)
MDDRANDW AND ORDER U
U, d
MDORANDW Pursuant to the Board's Order of October 27, 1980 the second 2 2.752 preheari.g conference was held on Decater 2,1980 in Houston, Texas.
The followmg parties and counsel entered their appearance.
J. Gregory Cope-land, Esq., Jack Newman, Esq., and Robert Culp, Esq., for Applicant; Richard Black, Esq., for the NRC Staff; John Doherty; William Schuessler; Brfan Baker; Stephen Doggett, Esq., representing himself and Carolyn Conn, Elinare Cu=ings, Robin Griffith, Leotis Johnston and Rosemary T-r; David Preister, Esq., and Susan Plett=an, for the State of Texas; Dr. David Marrack; I
James Scott, Esq., for TexPirg; Carro Hinderstein.
The folicwing matters were discussed and/or ruled upon durirg the prehearing conference:
1.
The Board noted that some Intervenors, contrarf to a 2.708(d),
l as amended, have not filed an original and two conformed copies of pleadings or documents other than correspcndence with the Cct: mission's Docketing and l
Service Branch. These failures have resulted in, amr4 other consequences, g50N
- L'3890 327 4;,,,
G
I l
- the Docketing and Service Branch being unable to furnish copies of said sub-missions to the Appeal Board. Further, the Board noted that, in sane cases, one copy had not been served upon each of the Board menbers.
2.
Staff advised that the second supplement to the EES would be issued soon (Tr. 1810-15) and the Board observed and Staff agreed that said issuance might generate -- h-sts to petitions to intervene, and, if allowed,would require more time for discovery and for preparation of or changes to testimony (Tr. 1818).
l 3.
Pursuant to the Order of November 21, 1980, Applicant distributed copies of the Joint Response of Applicant and Staff dated December 2,1980, setting forth the vywaimate dates en dich testimony would be presented sequanHally at the forth*v hearing upon environ-mental contentions and Board questions (Tr.1809). The only Intervenors
-Jx>
directly notified the Board that on December 18, 1980, they would file written direct expert testinony on their own environmeneal contentions listed in the Joint Response were TexPirg (Tr. 1821-34), Dr. Marrack (Tr. 1943), and Ms.
Hinderstein (1934). TexPirg advised it would file written direct expert j
testinony upon Board Questions 1 and 13 (Tr.1824), and upon the barge slip question raised by the Board in the Order of March 30, 1979.
(Tr. 1828)
(Paren-l thetically, with respect to the reworded, consolidated contention relating l
to health effects of low level r=A4=Hnn which had been admitted in the Order l
of Septenber 26, 1980, Mr. Doggett advised that Ms. O=4nga would be the lead party (Tr.1833), and accordingly the consolidated contention will be i
identified as Cumings 9). TexPirg identified its witnesses (Tr. 1821-34),
and Ms. Hinderstein identified her witness to testify on her Contention 5.
(Tr. 1934:
Because TexPirg previously had not identified Dr. Marrack as a witness, the
, _._,_.._._._..=... _ _-- _ _ _.._
. Board ordered that within the next ten days Dr. Marrack nust appear for the taking of his deposition by Applicant and that, if he does not appear, the Board will entertain a motion to strike his testimony.
(Tr. 1837-38).
Because Dr. Marrack was unable to recall the name of his egert witr.ess (Tr. 1942-45), he was directed to identify his egert witness upon Conten-tion 2(c) by Dececber 7, 1980.
(Tr. 1995) Applicant idaneiFied the names of its expert witnesses. After Applicant identified its expert witnesses (Tr. 1841-45), Staff identified some of its witnesses, but was unable to identify others because this testicxxrf was being prepared at the Oak Rf.dge National Laboratory.
(Tr. 1845-47). While at first evidancing concern that certain of the Staff's witnesses had not to date been identified, counsel for for TexPirg was satisfied when he was advised that he would know their names when the Staff filed its written direct testimony on Decenber 18, 1980.
(Tr.
1847-52). With regard to TexPirg's counsel's concern about certain panel participation during cross-Mmeinn, the Board advised Mr. Scott to timely object during the cross-examination and the Board would then rule.
(Tr. 1851, 1854) 4.
The Chaiman explained the procedures for the presentation of a party's case-in-chief, cross-exacdnation and redirect.
(Tr. 1856,1861)
The Chaiman suggested that the parties agree upon the sequence for the presentation of the parties' cases-in-chief after the Applicant has cts:pleted its case-in-chief uson each contention and Board Question, and noted that his past practice had been to permit the Staff to be the last party to present its case-in-chief.
(Tr. 1857-60). The Chairman stated that if a party desired to supplanent its written direct testirxxrf either in writing or orally at the hearing, it rust shcw good cause (Tr. 1861-67, 1869-70). Once again,
! citing Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, i
thics 1 and 2), AIAB-244, 8 AEC 857 (1874), he made it clear that Inter-venors cannot present direct testi:mmy upon contentions of other parties.
(Tr. 1870) 5.
After hearing a discussion, the Board ruled that its Order of Novecher 25, 1980 would not be altered with respect to the hearing arrange-4 I
ments (Tr. 1872-81). During the taking of limited appearance statements, the 1
Board stated that all parties should be present at least on Jantury 15, 1981, in order that evidence upon envirornental ratters could be presented during any lulls in the taking of these limited appearance statements.
(Tr. 1881-82) 6.
Applicant's counsel advised that he expects that the PSAR will be revised very soon to reflect the new emergency planning regulations.
Staff advised that, since this revision would have to be reviewed and a final supplementtotheSERwouldhavetobeissued,itisunEertainthatStaff would be ready to proceed upon the emergency planning contention during the l
enviromancal phase of the hearing. The Board advised that, after the issuance of said supplement, Mr. Schuessler, if he so desired, could amend his contention 4
and secure further discovery.
(Tr. 1883-85) 7.
Applicant will correspond with the Board and parties to arrange a time and place for a visit to the proposed site during the crning of January 13, 1981. The Board indicated that it would like to visit the SI?
j site during the February session.
(Tr. 1885-87) 8.
Applicant's counsel was requested to advise why the Motion for Stzmary diseosition dated August 4,1980 was directed only to McCorkle 17 and not to TexPirg Additional Contention 36,-since both cententions had been
~n n.,--
.wnn na-
-,,,-e,
,-w-e w,,
e- -
e,a
,-a-
,v,-
.s, e,-
-+,
rw-n
---w,-n e,
e -
r e wr, -s e
. consolidated (Tr. 1888-89).
It as explained subject to written confirma-tion that said cotion was directed to only one part of the em part McCorkle contention and was not directed to the cther part which had been consoli-dated with TexPirg's contention.
(Tr. 1914) 9.
Pursuant to the requests in Mr. Dche::cy's lettar of August 23, 1980, the Board (a) adopted the redrafted wording in the attach:ent to the Staff's letter of July 18, 1980 regarding Doherty contentions 6, 8, 9, 14 (including 25),17, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 38(b), 39 and 42, and (b) adopted the wording therein proposed for his Contention 47.
(Tr. 1891-92) Secff advised it would check whether the redraft of Doherty Contention 26 had m:Ltted sub-parts (b) and (c).
(Tr. 1893 1912) 3
- 10. The status of " Reed Reoort" litigation was discussed.
(Tr.
1894-96)
- 11. The Board granted Mr. Doherty's oral request to wi$ draw without prejdca his Motion For Subpoena dated Septer:ber 30, 1980.
(Tr.
1913).
I
- 12. The Board granted Applicant's counsel's oral request to l
withdraw without prejudice Applicant's Motion To Cocpel Answers To Interro-gatories filed on Novecber 10, 1980.
(Tr. 1917-18)
- 13. With respect to Mr. Doherty's letter of :' amber 23, 1980, c
setting forth unresolved issues, he agreed that paragraphs 1 and 3 had been
- ooted and that paragraph 2 appears to have been coated. With respect to paragraphs 4 and 5, he stated that he was satisfied because Applicant's counsel stated that Acplicant would timely provide documents and identify witnesses to be presented in support of its direct case with regard to health and safety contentions.
(Tr. 1918-29)
1 l
l '
- 14. Since TexPirg produced a docunent containing written infor-mation from its witness, Gregory Skie, during the conference (Tr.1915),
which responded to paragraphs 6 through 14 of a copy of the proposed order t
attached to Applicant's Motion To Coupel Responses and h=ts From Tex-Pirg's Expert Witnesses dated Noveber 6,1980, that portion of the Motion was denied as having been mooted. Since TexPirg had not produced &. Saxion's responses to paragraphs 1 through 5 of the copy of the proposed order attached to Applicant's Motion To Coupel of Noveber 6,1980, the Board granted that 1
i portion of the Motion and directed that Mr. h4m's responses be submitted i
by Neamher 12, 1980.
(Tr. 1939-40).
- 15. Pursuant to written requests by Applicant dated Novenber 14 3
and 26, 1980, which were opposed in Mr. Doherty's l'
.u.audum dated November 30, 1980, the Board heard discussian upon the setting of tentative dates for the filing of written direct testimony and for the emement of the hearing on health and safety issues. Naad4ng additional information in order to make a ruling, the Board requested that Applicant and Staff confer and agree upon a list of the health and safety contentions which they deem to be ripe for adjudication, and directed that such a list be subad.tted by Decenber 8,1981.
The Board also stated that, within five days after the receipt' of said list, Intervenors and the State of Texas could, if they desired, subnit conments agreeing or disagreeing that the listed health and safety contentions are ripe for adjudication.
(Tr. 1947-90,19%)
- 16. Finally, Applicant advised that it would file a motion in support of Staff's motion for simmarf disposition directed to Cumings' Contention 9, as consolidated.
If the Board denies this cotion, Applicant and Staff will request that their affidavits attached to their motions be
. ~...
4 deemd as the testironies of their expert witnesses.
Since the Board will grant such a request and since the Board time-wise will be unable to rule en Staff's rotion for sim,rf dispositicn by Dececber 18, 1981, neither Staff nor Applicant has to submit written testimony on Ct=dngs'Contencien 9 by Dececber 18th. (Tr. 1997-2004)
ORDER Pursuant to a 2.752, the foregoing, which recites unteers that a re discussed and/or ruled upon during the prehearing conference held on Dece: Der 2, 1980, shall centrol the subsequent course of the proceeding unless nodified for good cause.
EUR DE AIU4IC SAFEIY AND LICE 3 HU BOARD Mh k b&/A Ad=inistrotive Jucge l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
l l