ML19344B315
| ML19344B315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8008260504 | |
| Download: ML19344B315 (8) | |
Text
.
~
o 1]NIIED STA'IES OF AMERICA c) 9 oc w i
NUCEEAR REGUIATORY CQtISSION g
'IEE ATCMEC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O 22g
.N_
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, animm
$1nfjh*rY,.
Dr. E. Ieonard m anh n, Member 4
Branch b'/
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., M eber
,-)'
y In the matter of
)
)
BOUSTON LIGEING AND POWER CINPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER (August 21, 1980)
Pursuant to the Board's Order of July 22,1980, a E 2.752 prehearing conference was held on August 13, 1980, in Houston, Texas. The following parties and counsel entered their appearances:
J. Gregory Ccpeland, Esq.,
Jack Neman, Esq., and David Raskin, Esq., for Applicant; Stephen Sohinki, Esq. for the NRC Staff; David Preister, Esq. for the State of Texas; Stephen Ibggett, Esq. representing himself and Carolyn Conn, Elinare Cmings, Robin Griffith, Iaotis Johnston and Rosemary Tenar; James Scott, Esq. for TexPirg; John Doherty; Margaret Bishop; F. M. Potthoff, III; W4114nm Schuessler; Dr. David Marrack; Bryan Baker.
A.
Pre 14Mmry Matters Considered To Aid In The Orderly Disposition Of The Proceeding j
1.
Intervenors Baker, Schuessler, Potthoff, Doggett, Marrack and TexPirg requested the procedural assistance provided by the amendments to ss 2.712 and 2.750, and the Board granted the requests.
(Tr. 1631, 1633, M
1691, 1694, 1695, 1777).
h[
2.
The Board denied Dr. Marrack's three notions reflected in his & tion of August 4,1980. Part I, requesting that the record reflecting a representation in the Staff letter of July 18th be corrected, was denied l
8008260 504
l l
- in that the record, as now reflecting Dr. Marrack's representation, speaks for itself. Part II apparently argued that the Board had erred in requiring that Applicant and Staff should file notions for smmary disposition by August 4, 1980. Part II was denied because the Board did not require Appli-cant and Staff to file notions for surmwry disposition by August 4,1980 and inM the record reflects these two parties had advised that they were voluntarily prordng to file by said date.
(Staff's letter of July 18, 1980). Further, there was nothing inproper in the Applicant and Staff advising that they would file notions for smmary disposition by August 4, 1980 because 8 2.749 provides that any party nay, at least forty-five (45) days before the time fixed for the hearing, nove for sunnary disposition.
Obviously, Staff and Applicant did not have to wait until the forty-fi"h day before the scherbled hearing date (no date had been fixed prior to the
_ conference) within which to file their notions. Finally, our Order of July 22, 1980 did not preclude any party from discussing ammht of plead-ings, and we stated at the prehearirg conference that any party could nove for leave to amend its contentions. We denied Part III because E 2.752(a) had net been contravened in that this conference was held within sixty days after discovery had been coupleted on July 9,1980, and in that said secticn, in any event, provides that the presiding officer may specify any other time for the holding of a prehearing conference.
(Tr. 1633-1637, 1772, 1780-1782).
3.
The Board denied Dr. Marrack's Motion To Coupel Applicant To Answer Interrogatories of June 11, 1980 In A Responsive Manner, which had been filed on July 26, 1980. In its Response of July 9,1980 and dinng the
. prehearing conference, Applicant exp1mhad that na4the-it nor its expert wit: ness, Dr. Frank Schlicht, had prepared a study relating to the proposed transdssion line corricors. Obviously the Board cannot empel Applicant to prepare a site specific study for Dr. Nrrack, and, if the Intervenor had desired to find out. tat Applicant's expert witness would testify upon, he should have filed written interrogatories or taken depositions prior to 1/
July 9,1980, the ccx:pletion date for discovery.
(Tr. 1637-1641).-
4.
The Board denied as unr4 =1y Dr. Marrack's & tion For Correc-tion Of Wording Of Contention In NRC Staff latter 18, July 1980, p. 99, which was dated August 5,1980. 'Ihe wording of Dr. Marrack's enneaneinn 2(c) set forth in the Staff's letter of July 18, 1980,' precisely reflects the Board's rewording of that contention as addtted in our Order of March 10, 1980. If Dr. R M. had an objection to our rephrasing of his contention, he should have filed a rimly objection, especially in light of the fact that discovery has proraadai on the basis of the Board's rewording (Tr. 1671-1674).
5.
'Ihe parties discussed Dr. Marrack's Motion For Order Requir-ing Lb41=ca al Ccesultations And Advisory Activities By NRC Staff Attorney And Applicant Cease, which had been filed on August 5,1980. Of course, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.102, the Staff may request any one party to confer 1
infornally with it. Further, nothing was brought to our attention indicating that the Staff's and Applicant's conferring and discussing schachling and the smem-i=ation of contentions prior to meeting with the Intervenors on July 10, 1980 were in any way irpreper or collusive. Accordingly, the Motion was denied (Tr. 1674-1689).
1/ Dr. Marrack did not enter his appearance until after the Board had heard com-i5ents upon and had ruled upon his & tion of August 4, 1980 and upon his Motion To Cocpel dated July 26, 1980.
. 6.
The Board heard discussion relating to Mr. Doherty's Third
& tion To Capel Discovery Frcxn Applicant served on July 5,1980. With respect to his fourteenth and fifteenth sets of interrogatories which were the subject of his notion, Mr. Doherty affirmed Applicant's counsel's state-ment that he had been fe4abad with the docunents referenced in Applicant's responses to these interrogatories and that Applicant's lead engineer had explained to him why these documents had been referenced. He stated that he had no cacplaints regarding the responses. Accordingly, the Board denied as noot the Motica To Cacpel of July 5,1980.
(Tr. 1641-1654).
7.
The Board granted Mr. Doherty's August 5,1980 Ntion To Cacpel Discovery From Applicant, and Applicant was given ten days within whic' to respond to certain interrogatories set forth in Mr. Doherty's sixteenth set of interrogatories. Wile Applicant offered to mke the
_ referenced documents av=finhle to Mr. Doherty inder the same procedures followed with regard to the fourteenth and fifteenth sets of interrogatories, Mr. Doherty indicated that the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer was greater than Applicant's burden..cee F.R.C.P. 33(c).
(Tr. 1645, 1648-1649, 1652-1654).
8.
The Board deni.ed m.i.lcut prejudice Mr. Doherty's Fot:mh & tion To Capel Discovery Frcra Applicant dated July 29, 1980. Pursuant to an agree-l ment with Applicant's counsel, Mr. Doherty cay proceed to enter upon the SI?
site and Polaroid pictures will be taken by Applicant's photographer teon Mr.
Doherty's request which will be given to him.
If problems arise, Mr. Doherty l
may file another ration to eccpel.
(Tr. 1654-1668).
9.
In 11@.: of the ruling upc. Mr. Doherty's Four.h & tion To Cct:pel dated July 29, 1980, and in light of Applicant's cot =sel's statement i
that the same offer will be rade to Mr. Scott as had been made to Mr. Dohert.y,
. the Board also denied without prejudice TexPirg's & tion To Cacpel Site Visit According To NRC Rules, dated August 2,1980. The Board suggested i
that TexPirg's Mr. Scott acts:pt to arrange an agraamant along the lines that were worked out with Mr. Doherty, and that &. Scott and &. Doherty together inspect the SIP site. If problems arise, Mr. Scott uny file another notion to cocpel.
(Tr. 1668-1671).
- 10. TexPirg had filed an undated Motion To Capel Discovery Upon ELSP and NRC Staff, which the Board assumed had been dated or served on August 2, 1980. To the extent the Motion To Coupel was directed to the Staff, the & tion was denied as having been rooted since the Staff had filed partial responses on July 29,1980 to TexPirg's Interrogatories of July 9, 1980. Staff counsel advised that Mr. Scott had not objected to the fact that the response was a partial cae, and stated that the balance of the responses to TexPirg's interrogatories would be filed within the next few weeks.
(Tr.
1671,1695-1696,1700). h = e Mr. Scott had not entered an appearance up to that time, the Board procaadad to hear Applicant's counsel's oral responses in opposition to Te.xPirg's & tion To Cocpel but the Board stated that it would i
l have to review the interrogatories and responses before ruling upon the & tion (Tr. 1696-1700).
l
- 11. The Board discussed with Applicant and Staff the Order Re:
Items And Questions Of Interest To The Board dated July 31, 1980, and added one unre item which had been referred to in the Order of March 30, 1979 at page 3.
(Tr. 1701-1709).
- 12. With respect to the six protective orders previously issued, the Board directed that, within thirty days, Applicant should have officers l
of the affected caccanies (General Electric and Brown and Root) sutz::it i
O affidavits to the Board in support of the claim of entitlement to protective treatment by deconstrating that (a) the information in question was of the i
type custm=rHy held in confidence by its originator, (b) there is a rational basis for having cust mmrily held it in confidence, (c) it has, in fact, been held in ennfidanc#, and (d) it is not found in public sources.
(Tr. 1710).
- 13. Mr. Schuessler furnished copies of a sn % sion captioned Consolidation of TexPirg, Doggett And Schuessler Contentions Dealing With Adecmcy Of Appliuant's Escrgency Evacuation Plans, which he stated had been served on August 12, 1980. Applicant and Staff were given leave to respond and/or to file a notion to strike.
(Tr. 1717, 1731-1736).
B.
Matters Considered khich Were Set Forth In the Order ScMHng Prehearing Conference dated July 22, 1980 1.
The Board stated that any party may file a notion for si-ry disposition pursuant to a 2.749, and inquired whether any of the Intervenors
(
. atteding the conference planned to file such notions.
(Tr. 1713, 1715-1717, 1719). Pursuant to a 2.711(a), the Board directed that (a) Intervenors shall have between August 14 and October 2, 1980 to respond to Applicant's and Staff's notions for si-7 disposition, (b) on or before September 12, 1980, intervening parties nest file their notions for si-ry disposition, if any, (c) Applicant and Staff shall respond to any Int.=u.venor's notion for st-ry disposition on or before October 2,1980, (d) any notions for extension of time cust show good cause and specify the progress made toward cacpletion of the notions for sumun,f disposition or of the responses thereto, and (e) if any Intervenor files a notion for si-ry disposition, he will telephone Mr.
Copeland, who will make arrangements to secure a copy of the notion and expedite its delivery to Staff counsel, Mr. Schirl:1.
(Tr. 1744-1747).
-7_
2.
2:e M aitised de c.ar"a da: (a) as socn as cessible Efter Oc::foer 2,1950, ebe 3 card will iss.se a & :-'# g en -he :cMmc f=s - y W i"m, (b) es eafter it will s"M 'a a seemd 8 2.752 c:nference to d*=~- else's ccc e"- ; bcwar be :sy =cm.# - ler.t Oc file a late cce te-#m. to assen de em e #m cn *=is em b#->' #, bc: be :L:s:
satisfy e 3 card da: 6e T-r.u.c '.2s shc7.n goed cause far M.-ing 3'ed en have raised :be c~- at ' 1 earlie an:i da: alle of :be r:ict
- 2 E:" resOll:iO. Of e iss2 di*hCc: cNi" # g uj assis 68 '-co. d in de zwy 3./ I.. ' # f.: cf i:s !"' #--Es c3 sia#- ' # g, de 3 card dr #ad A p'# --- 's
. P,*cn 70 Se: A E**- M le yer C N -':g Fl._#a"" 2*y 9 7 # ?t, da*M
<t:g.:s: 7,1950 Q.1759).
- trsa: ranted delay. See Nordern States Power Co. (PraMe Island R: clear Generating Plant, thits 1 and 2), A1A3-244, 8 AEC 857 (1974).
(Tr. 1725-1726).
3.
We Board advised the parties that the d e 4 1on m left to then eeder cr not to agree upon sm d. ed contentions (Tr. 1748-1750).
HR DE AltMC SAM AND LICDGEU BOARD d
S'Tlden J./iolfe, asqdre Cofm L Dated at Eethesda, M!ryland this 21st day of Augst,1980.
I 1