ML19347A889

Response in Opposition to Jf Doherty 800915 Motion for Addl Time to Reply to NRC & Util Motion for Summary Disposition. Intervenor Made No Attempt to Inspect Documents Needed for Answers Until 800911.W/Certificate of Svc & Documentation

ML19347A889
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/25/1980
From:	Copeland J, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8009300469
Download: ML19347A889 (10)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __

SOptemb3r 25, 1980

@ A.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

,BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

- SEP 29 g y D Office of the S b In the Matter of S W ordre g g Smd , .;

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S 4,, .s /

COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 ~

S (Allens Creek Nuclear S

)

Generating Station, Unit S l No. 1) S APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME l

Intervenor John Doherty filed a Motion dated September 15, 1980, for an extension of time in which to reply to Applicant 1

and Staff motions for summary disposition. Mr. Doherty requests  !

an extension of 42 days beyond the time limit set by this  !

1 Board's Order of August 21, 1980, and approximately 80 days over and above the time allowed by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (10 C.F.R. S 2.749) Mr. Doherty has failed to demonstrate any good cause for this request, and it should be denied.

Mr. Doherty's request must be considered in the light of the extensive time period Intervenors have had to prepare for hearings. The Board hs already recognized that the protracted nature of this proceeding to date calls for and 1/ .

supports an " expeditious" procedure henceforth.- With pSO3 l 1/ Prehearing Conference of August 13, 1980, Tr. 1800. 5

//

8009300469 h

O A this in mind, the 3oard presaged Intervenor's request for an extension of time when it declared that "(intervenors] must establish specific good cause and evidence to the Board very clearly why you have to have an extension of time of so many 2/

days."-

Mr. Doherty's Motion does not begin to meet the standard established by the Board. The Motion rests almost entirely on unsubstantiated assertions that Intervenor requires additional time to respond to motions for summary disposition 3/

because of delays in obtaining information in three instances.

As discussed below, in none of these three instances is it i even alleged that such information is relevant to any identified motion for summary disposition.

(il Mr. Doherty asserts that "a few relevant" Staff answers to interrogatorias are outstanding. He does not, however, inform the Board of how many such answers are outstanding, which ones they are, or how they are relevant to the unidentified motions for summary disposition. Mr. Doherty certainly makes no showing that these particular interrogatories are the precise ones upon which he is relying to form a genuine issue of fact to support his contentions, or that failure to obtain 2/ Id. at 1745.

j3 Mr. Doherty's other arguments are basically the same--the hearings have been delayed so there should be more time available for dealing with motions for summary disposition. These arguments present only a case for how delay might be accommodated, not why a delay is justified.

responses so prejudices his ability to respond to particular 4

motions for summary disposition / that the allotted time must be doubled from that now provided. Indeed, Mr. Doherty does not make a " specific" and " clear" case that his ability to respond to any particular motion for summary disposition has been prejudiced at all.

(2) Mr. Doherty represents that documents to which he was " entitled" were withheld until september 12, 1980.

Intervenor's representations are not in accordance with the facts: on August 4, 1980, Applicant identified by letter (attached) thirteen documents referenced in its motions for summary disposition which were not previously produced to Intervenor. Applicant advised Mr. Doherty that these documents 5/

were available for immediate inspection.- Mr. Doherty made no attempt to inspect any documents nor made any inquiry about . -

them until September 11, 1980 (see attached telephone minutes) .

4/ Presumably, a "few" answers can only be " relevant" to a few motions for summary disposition.

5/ There were three other public. documents identified which had not arrived as of August 4. However, the three documents were available for inspection by August 8 and would have been~ produced as early as that date if Mr. Doherty had ever requested to inspect them.

6/ Mr. Doherty also mispresents that the documents were made available at the Applicant's Energy Development Complex (EDC) .

As Applicant has advised the Board several times, there was an informal understanding that Applicant's counsel would produce documents in their downtown offices if this were more convenient j for Mr. Doherty, and counsel have done so on several occasions.

l l

Mr. Doherty's delay in inspecting these documents is his own; in fact, as of this date, Mr. Doherty has still made no effort to inspect these documents.

(3) Finally, Mr. Doherty asserts that unavailable sections of the " Reed Report" are " relevant" to "certain of his Contentions." No explanation is offered as to how these sections are relevant to any issue in the proceeding or to any contention which is the subject of a motion for summary disposition.

Applicant has provided information well beyond that called for by the agreement with Mr. Doherty on the inspection of the " Reed Report." Moreover, Mr. Doherty has pursued the

" Reed Report" information at a most leisurely pace. He did not make known his belief that portions were relevant to the motions for summary disposition until almost a month after the motions were filed and six weeks after the subject contentions were identified. He did not even inspect the proffered material until a month after it was made available under the Board's Protection Order.

Mr. Doherty's " reasons" for failing to meet the responsibilities of a party are not reasons at all, but simply excuses. In weighing such representations the Board may be gu ded by the direction of the Appeal Board:

In considering whether, in a particular case, delay should be countenanced to allow a party to obtain additional information, a board must l

l l

balance the effects of such delay against such countervalling factors as the alacriuy with which the information was requested when its materiality became apparent, the particular relationship of requested information to unresolved questions in the proceeding, and the overall importance of the information to be a sound decision.

Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Units 1 and 2) ,

ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 33 (1976).

Mr. Doherty has shown little interest, much less alacrity, in seeking this "information" up until now. He has not shown any relationship between the missing "information" and his responses to the motions for summary disposition; nor has he attempted to show why the length of the requested postponement is appropriate.

All these failures come after the Board's plain instructions to provide clear and specific justifications for delay requests. Mr.

Doherty's request is deficient on all counts and should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: J

(. k n Greco g @ elahd '

C[.ThomadBfddle,Jr.

BAKER & BOTTS E rrell Hancock 3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. David B. Raskin Washington, D.C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FCR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY i

1 l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l I

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 i 5

(Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, Unit S No. 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ~

Reply on Behalf of Houston Lighting & Power Company to Order of September 17, 1980, and Applicant's Response to Intervenor Doherty's Motion for Additional Time in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 25th day of September, 1980.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing . Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Bcx 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Juage, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Chase R. Stephens l Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. F. H. Potthoff Atomic Safety and Licensing 720Q Shadyvilla, No. 110 Board Panel Houston, Texas 77055 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

i

Mr. Bryan L. Baker D. Marrack 1118 Montrose 420 Mulberry Lane Houston, Texas 77019 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq. Mr. J. Morgan Bishop P. O. Box 592 11418 Oak Spring Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77043 Mr. W. Matthew Perrenod Mr. John F. Doherty 4070 Merrick 4327 Alconbury Houston, Texas 77025 Houston, Texas 77021 Mr. James M. Scott Ms. Brenda McCorkle 13935 Ivy Mount 6140 Darnell Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Houston, Texas 77074 Steve Schinki, Esq. Mr. Wayne E. Rentfro Staff Counsel P. O. Box 1335 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Carro Hinderstein 609 Fannin, Suite 521 Mr. William Schuessler Houston, Texas 77002 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 J. Gre r Copedand l

F f , \. '

-) I e '

p g .1911 ~ 7bl August 4, 1980 P.r. John F. Doherty 4327 Alconbury * '

IIouston, Texas 77021

Dear 24r. Doherty:

In past Interrogatories you have asked us to identify documents upon which we may rely in rebutting various of your contentions. In the last week, while preparing motions for l summary disposition, we have identified a number of these documents which have not been produced to you. The following documents are referenced in the affidavits supporting our motions for su- w disposition and are available for your inspection during the period allowed you by the Board for responding to these motions:

1. NUREG - 0578

2. UUREG - 0085

3. NUREG - 0313

4. NUREG - 0531

5. UUREG - 0582

6. NUREG - 0483

7. NEDO - 21660

8. "The Application of Lcw Carbon Type 216 Stainless Steel for' BWR Recirculation Piping System"

9. "tiitigation of Stress Corrosion Cracking in EWR's" l

l

a 1 t

l

r. O.

9 c n;\l- \ \

s/ I k tJj; _lA _a Mr. John F. Doherty Page Two l

10. " Cleaning of Piping and Equipment"

11. "Effe't c of Thermal Hydraulic Feedback on the BWR Rod Drop Accident"

12. General Electric letter on " Reactor Internal i Vibration Program"

. 13. Nuclear Power Experience Reports i The following documents are also referenced in these .

. affidavits, have not been produced to you, but are not presently '

in Applicant's possession. We are attempting to acquire copies l l

of these documents from General Electric and elsewhere in order '

2 to make them available to you:

1. EPRI-NP-564

2. " Modification to Eliminate Incore Vibration" (Letter) 1

3. Safety Evaluation Report on BWR Channel Box l The Iemaining references in the affidavits are stndard .

! texts andpublished journals.

i Sincerely yours,

__ BAKER & BOTTS By:

C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.

Attorney for Houston Lighting & Power Co.

CTBJr/155 -

\. l l H-2412-701C-2 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY (Allens Creek Licensing) September 11, 1980

- I 1

MEMORANDUM

' l TO: File )

FROM: Tom Biddle.  !

1 Re: Telephone Conversation with Doherty On September 11, 1980, Doherty called to raise two questions. First, he inquired whether we had received his further request that G.E. produce certain part.s of the " Reed Report." I informed him that we had received his request, l

had forwarded it to G.E. and were awaiting a response.

Doherty also asked whether the three documents identified to him in a letter of August 4, 1980, as referenced  ;

in affidavits but as yet unavailable, were now in fact availab'le for inspection. I told him I would check and give him an answer within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Lynn Klement re, ports that these documents are available. Doherty also informed me of his new home phone number which is 747-1837.

)

C.T.B. )

90 cc: Mr. Copeland Mr. Klement Mr. Richards I

i 1

_ . _ _