ML20053D086

Response in Opposition to Util 820519 Motion to Strike Doherty Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations.Contention Should Be Treated as Such,Not as Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20053D086
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/24/1982
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8206040047
Download: ML20053D086 (3)

Text

.

( .- ,

BELATED CORRESPONDEMF UNITED STATES,OF AMERICA g7 '

1982 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING.; BOARD ygg

, . .  ; w .. n .n- .

In the Matter of: .: ,

0-T ~ci.

^

l ' HOUSTON ., LIGHTING, & 2 PO ER.C0. ,.'.

Docket No.M502466.CP (Allens: Creek Nuclear Gen-erating Station, Unit 1)

INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE DOHERTY CONTENTION 58 On April 22, 1982, this Intervenor filed a contention in this proceeding styled, "Intervenor Doherty's Contention In M p n d d v o replied on Miy',,14/1952;.'oniy'to. Applicant.

Applicant filed -

a two page motion 'on May 19, 1982, which arrived at this

. Intervenor's . address . on May . 24, 1982. In it's May 19, 1982

. Motion, Applicant would have.the Board strike this Intervenor's reply bocause the word" Motion" appears in parentheticals in the style of the April.22, 1982 contention filing, and in the

, style and a single instance'in'the introductory paragraph

• ~ ' (Pai;e 1) of'.this Intervenor's May 14,1'9 82 reply filing.

Applicant wotild have the- Board strike the reply of May 14, .

1982, and evidently treat the Contentfion 58 under'the rules ,

regarding Motions instead of those regardi d Contentions. '

Theidifficulty sith .this .positibh 'is':that the controlling Intervenor filing is clearly a contention, as can be seen

. ..a:....~.. by reading ite On page"one of' the-April 22,~1982reling:h., states "This'Contentfohsis in"two paits." In 'additfori','~a2ihp1Tb '

cantpointhout.init's'filingofMay7,1982,ty;t 2PthAtthefiling. i did not address the requirement for ~eopening r the record.

F d$ 5iaet re'asonit fid n6@wksibe'chnsdoik?was h t n6t riiimBbion td re-

[

ES

'b'hiBrth 9 contenti@gecord, although i can be heard' without it doing is difficult so. to sele.how this o u .

b ou Purthervon,.*in its treatment of this Intervenor's filing og of April 22, 1982, Applicant dealt with the, points of the con-S*

om ttention, as if it were a contention. That is, by dealing

-with the Acril 22, 1982, as if it were a contention, Appli-

[S Q@o '

cant cannot have its druthers, and ask this be treated as 0

as a Motion, and be subject to 10 CFR 2 730(c) rules.

In aa'y case, Aoplicant~has treated the April 22, 1982 filing as it would any contention, and placed great em-phasis on the aopearance of the word '(Motion)' in the style. -Aoplicant has not alle6ed there is any advantage this Intervenor has gained by placing the word there.

i This Intervenor placed the word there because he believed that the circumstances made it strange to style this as just another contention. Applicant would have f, - the Board seize on this error and not permit an important

(

clairification of a Contention asserting the Applicant l> did not notify the URC of the potential significance of findings in a report on a nuclear' plant:for which it is the construction licensee. Yet, Applicant has not even asserted it vas in/any way bothered by the appearance of the word "(Motion)" in its filing of May 7, 1982. That is, it left out nothing in its May'7; 1982, response because of theword.

Since the Aoplicant treated this Intervenor's April 22, 1982, as a Centention, it follows that it L

cannot on May 19, 1982, file a " Motion to strike" this Int'ervenor's May 14, 1982 Reoly, because the rules we have followed in this proceeding have been that Inter-venor30 would file Contentions, Staff and Applicant would y reply,' and Intervenor's would either orally or in written form be permitted a final statement including amendment

(

of the Contention. That is, there has never (tc this Inter-venor's knowledge) be6n a' fourth salvo, as it.were.

i Hence, this Intervenor would argue that Applicant stretches mightily t'o convert the Doherty filing of April

, 22, 1982 into a motion, and that the subsequent May 14, 1982 filing of this Intervenor since it is based on the Conten-tion 58, could not change a contention into a Motion such that it would canabalize'itself under 10 CFR 2 730(c).

The better procedure is to take this Intervenor's h two filing's as contention relatied which'is'what 'they7 appear i

L

- s k

e - . - _ __

_3_

i . . .

to be from familiarity with other contention filings in this proceeding. Applicant would have the Board elevate a mole hill to a countain in its May 19, 1982, Motion,r s:: e a way of postibly not considering the sissues ral. sed by this Intervenor. But, it has not shown that the appearance of "(MOTION)" in' the style of this In~tervenor's April l. 22, 1982 filing prejudiced it in any way. ,

'{

i

- Respectfully, '

w s' r .;l *.sg *

.m.sr-rn -~ ,r <. w .:n y.<;y: m y

• r m . % :r.yt m v . Q v w

/

John F. Doherty jfd u Intervenor nro se I certify that copies of "INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE DOHERTY CONTENTION 58" were ,

served on the part es below via First Class U. S. Postal Service,this[ of May, 1982.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Administrative Judge Gustave A. Linenberger Administrative Judge Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Richard A. Black, Esq. Staff Counsel J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. Applicant Counsel Jack R. Newman, Esq. Applicant Counsel The Several Intervening Parties -

.j(ASLAB) ? @- '.,

' ?.V -

Atomic Safety Licensing & cAppeal'. i-'-$,f,'.I Board,N##@'4%g,jh!$

+

.,,ixDocketingi&IService'Branc h s.%%. &iSOQtirshWffAtiw%Q::%r,a'

?g+i 4&

%- ._ V

/

hn F Doherty # y O

, JD. g#

s /. $<

s

_. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _