ML19341B602
| ML19341B602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | Copeland J, Copeland J, Raskin D BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102030085 | |
| Download: ML19341B602 (6) | |
Text
.
January 29, 1,9
\\"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'?
2 sAh
'G}
C o..,,,, *N b
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- *n j!I
\\g N
+f In the Matter of
)
' :A -
N/ fi-
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket No. 50-466 COMPANY
)
\\
N
/&
h dh[b I,1 (Allens Creek Nucl 'ar Generating
)
Jul
{
Station, Unit 1
)
=,. Q 3 W....,w ' c3
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR G
usM' " C
'M 8* W5'#
DOHERTY'S MOTION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION PROCEDURES
' Q: f I.
N/ ig \\
On January 23, 1981, Intervenor Doherty filed a motion requesting the Licensing Board to " permit insertion of cross examination by one or more parties before a previous cross examining party completes cross examination of a witness or panel of witnesses."
(Motion, p. 1)
Mr. Doherty stated that the reason for his request was that "a unique burden of unproductive attendance is placed on a second intervenor waiting for the first to finish,"
because "it is difficult for both cross-examining intervenor 1
and intervenor-in-waiting to guess the length of a particular cross examination."
(Motion, p. 1)
For the reasons stated below, Applicant urges the Board to reject Mr. Doherty's request.
II.
i Doherty's motion demonstrates a failure to understand Mr.
1 the reasons underlying this Board's repeated attempts to explain i
the necessity of attendance during all cross examination and the Board's admonition that it may, in the future, be required to place reasonable limits on the intervenors' s10 203 0 CS g
p sos
$ Of
cross examination of Applicant and Staff witnesses.
As the Board repeatedly stated, parties are expected to attend all hearing sessions and their failure to do so is at their own peril.
(Tr. 3101; Tr. 3305; Tr. 3325; Tr. 3474).
This ruling is supported by past NRC practice.
Long Island Lighting Company, (Jamesport Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), 2 CCH t 30,091 (Aug.
5, 1976)
The justification for this ruling was made abundantly clear during the first two weeks of hearings; failure to attend during another intervenor's cross examination has already resulted in delay due to repetitious intervenor cross examination.
In. addition, the Board has had to make repeated explanations of its prior rulings.
Although Mr. Doherty continues to labor under the impression that attendance during another party's cross examination is " unproductive", the Board has already noted that much of this repetition could be avoided j
l if intervenors were in attendance while cross examination by other parties was being conducted.
Doherty's assertion that the Board's cross examination Mr.
l procedure creates a " unique" burden on intervenors is also incorrect.
As parties to this proceeding, intervenors have obligations as well as rights afforded by the NRC's rules of practice.
One such obligation is to attend the evidentiary hearings and to participate in the adjudication of issues which they have themselves raised.
See e.g., Northern States Power Cg. (Prairie Island Units 1 & 2), ALAB-228, 2 NRC 390, 393 (1975) they stand on no different footing than any In this respect, i
other party to this proceeding.
Moreover, Mr. Doherty fails to recognize the burden on Applicant and Staff, and their witnesses, who are required to spend many days in the hearing room awaiting the completion of repetitious cross examination of other witnesses.
Nor does Mr. Doherty consider the costs associated with regulatory delay which is the result of fruitless cumulative questioning.
In sum, Mr. Doherty's request is without merit and should be rejected by the Board.
III.
At the recent sessions it was established that the inter-venors have maintained communications during the first two weeks of evidentiary hearings.
(Tr. 2741).
In his motion, Mr. Doherty further suggests that intervenors might-have to communicate with one another regarding the need to continue cross examination until other intervenors are expected to arrive in the hearing room.
In light of these facts, Applicant believes that Mr. Doherty's concerns could be largely eliminated if the intervenors were to coordinate their cross examination so I
as to minimize repetitious questioning.
If this were done, the l
attendance time for all parties and witnesses could be reduced and intervenors could better plan to attend those sessions at which matters of interest to a particular intervenor would be I'
and that intervenor could avoid asking the same l
considered, questions when his/her turn to cross examine arose.
Although the Board has already suggested this procedure to the parties (Tr. 34711, the instant filing suggests that the value of this suggestion has not hit home.
l l
4-IV.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant requests the Board to deny intervenor Doherty's motion and to again recommend to the intervening parties that they coordinate their activities so as to avoid unnecessary delay.
Respectfully submitted, (d/
f%
OF COUNSEL:
Jack R. Newman LOWENSTEIN, NEWNd4, REIS &
Robert H. Culp I
AXELRAD David B.
Raskin 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 washington, D.C.
20036 BAKER & BOTTS J. Gregory Copeland 3000 One Shell Plaza C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.
Houston, Texas 77002 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
~,. ~ -
r e
e:
UNITED NUCLEAR STATES OF BEFORE REGULATORY AMERICA THE ATOMIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND In tho Matter LICENSINGBOARD of HOUSTON LIGHTING
)
(AllGns Creek Nu l POWER COMPANY
)
Station, Unit 1) ear Generating
)
Docket No. 50-466, c
)
)
)
)
I HEREBY CERTIFICATEOF
'3PONSE TO CERTIFY SERVICE OSS-EXAMINATIONINTERVENOR DOHERTY'that copies hand
- of MOTION FORthe foregoing:
or by deposit in thPROCEDURES were S
tage pr,epaid, day ofe Unitedserved upon the follA MODIFICATION this 29th St OF January,ates Mail, first clowing persons, Idon J. Wolfe, Esq.
1981.
nic Safety and Licen,siChairman ass
>nrd Panel ng ington, DCNuclear Regulator Susan Plettman David 20555 y Commission Texas Attorney, Gen Preister, Esq.
P. C.
Esq.
,, L;onard Box 12548 eral's Office 3, Box 350AChea tum Capitol nsvillo, Georgia Austin, TexasStation 30677 78711 ptava A.
Linenberger Hon. Charles J
\\ Safety and Licensing P. yor, City of Wallis Ma 3 Panel
. Dusek O Bo
[f[##
i 9
exa DC 05 77485
. Stephens o nt ig and P. O. Box 99Judg, Au t n Cou the Secretary ofService Section Bellville, Texas W
nty raiscion toer Regulatory Commi 77418 Atomic Safety and Li in, DC Board Panel 20555 ssion Washington, DCU.S. Nuclear Regula censing ystyandLicensing 20555 tory Commission
.ogrd kor Ragulatory Commission a DC 20555 Y
- James M. Scott, Jr.
- Richard Black, Esq.
13935 Ivy Mount U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Commission Washington, DC 20555 William Schuessler 5810 Darnell
(
Houston, Texas 77074 John F. Doherty i
4327 Alconbury Street Houston, Texas 77021 Stephen A.
Doggett, Esq.
P. O. Box 592 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 TexPirg l
Att:
Clarence Johnson Bryan L. Baker 1923 Hawthorne l
Executive Director i
Box 237 U.S.
Houston, Texas 77098 University of Houston Houston, Texas 7704 J. Morgan Bishop Margaret Bishop Carro Hinderstein 11418 Oak Spring l
609 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77043 Suite 521 Houston, Texas 77002 W. Matthew Perrenod 4070 Merrick Hous ton, Texas 77024 D. Marrack l
420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Brenda McCorkle 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 F. H. Potthoff, III l
1814 Pine Village I
Houston, Texas 77080 Wayne E. Rentfro l
P. O. Box 1335 l
Rosenberg, Texas 77471 I
t l ll Y l%
!