ML20042C747
| ML20042C747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1982 |
| From: | Bachmann R, Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207140019 | |
| Download: ML20042C747 (5) | |
Text
4 07/12/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM4ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-155-OLA (Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION REGARDING REBUTTAL WITNESS ON CRITICALITY CONTENTION I.
INTRODUCTION On July 1,1982, Counsel for Christa Maria, Mills and Sier (Intervonors) 1/ or leave to present a rebuttal witness or witnesses on the issue moved f
of criticality.
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff does not oppose such a motion, providing certain conditions are imposed upon the presentation of such testimony.
II. DISCUSSION Initially, it should be noted that the Staff does not oppose Intervenors' Motion for leave to present rebuttal witnesse:, on the contested issue of criticality in this proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that Intervenors did not present direct testimony on this issue.
-1/
Intervenors Response to Licensing Board Request for Motion Regarding Rebuttal Witness on Criticality Contention (Motion).
prg,1CD v, 2
~
Certif
-an 7140019 820712 tm ADOCK 05000 5
However, in their Motion (p.1) Intervenors submit that they have a right to present rebuttal witnesses at the end of the hearing. No authority or source of such right of Intervenors is cited, and indeed the Staff is not aware of any right to present rebuttal witnesses at the conclusion of the licensing hearings. To delay the presentation of such rebuttal testimony until the conclusion of all other aspects of the hearing would constitute s
a procedure fraught with the potential for excessive delay. However, at
- p. 3 of the Motion, Intervenors apparently have softened their appraisal of this "right," and are willing to agree that written rebuttal testimony will be filed twenty days prior to the resumptio'n of the hearings. The Staff would not oppose presentation of rebuttal testimony (i.e. testimony presented in opposition to the record testimony of Applicant and Staff on this issue, and not a complete treatment of the criticality issue as would be the case if direct testimony were to be allowed at this point in time) at the next session of evidentiary hearings to be scheduled.
The Staff would also note that the Licensing Board granted Intervenors until June 28 to file this Motion for leave to present rebuttal witnesses, with replies due from all parties on July 12.
(Tr. 2618, 2620).
In fact, the instant Motion was not filed until July 1, 1982, and the Staff is not aware of, nor has the Staff received, a motion for extension of time to file said Motion. While no prejudice has accrued to the Staff because of the apparent late filing of this Motion, given the present posture of tfie instant case, the Staff would note that any future failures to comply a
with Licensing Board-imposed deadlines may prompt the Staff to oppose such pleadings as having been filed in an untimely manner.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Staff does not oppose Intervenors' motion for leave to present a rebuttal witness or witnesses, so long as the written rebuttal testimony of such witness (es) is filed at least 20 days prior to the next scheduled session of evidentiary hearings in the captioned proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
~
r Richard J. Go'ddard Counsel for NRC Staff
/
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of July, 1982.
h o
w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tt1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-155 (Big Rock Point Plant)
)
(S ent Fuel Pool Modification)
P CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~ ~
Pe.ter'.B. Bl.ocX Chairman
"~~l Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 11gG Coniiecticut Ave,,N.W., #325 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555
- John A. Leithauser Dr. Oscar H.. Paris Leithauser and Leithauser P.C.
Administrative Judge Opal Plaza, Suite 212 l
, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18301 Eight Mile Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East Detroit, MI 48021 i Washington, D.C.
20555
- l John O'Neill, II i Mr. Frederick J. Shon Route 2, Box 44 j Administrative Judge Maple City, Michigan 49664 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
lU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission Christa-Maria Washington, D.C.
20555
- Route 2, Box 108c Charlevoix, MI 49720 -
l Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
' Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Ms. JoAnne Bier Isham, Lincoln & Beale 204 Clinton Three First National Plaza Charlevoix, MI 49720 Chicago, Il 60602 i
~
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Thomas Dammann Appeal Board Panel Route 3, Box 241 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlevoix, MI 49720 Washington, D. C.
20555 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Consumers Power Co.
Board Panel 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MI 49201 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Gordon Howie
- Docketing and Service Section 411 Pine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boyne City, MI 49712 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Jim Mills
~
Herbert Semmel, Esq.
Route 2, Box 108 Urban Law Institute of Charlevoix, MI 49720 The Antioch School of Law 1624 Crescent Place, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009
/
hard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff
-...