ML20054J937

Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Request to Reopen Record. Request Improper & Insufficient to Support Relief.Commission Rules Cannot Be Circumvented by Refiling Same Argument After ASLB Ruling Issued.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054J937
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/28/1982
From:	Raskin D HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206300221
Download: ML20054J937 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

t 6/28/82

?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'+

q ,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466

. )

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DOHERTY'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD Mr. Doherty has filed a third request, dated June 15, 1982, for the Board to reopen the record in this proceeding to hear his two-part contention on the Applicant's alleged failure to comply with 10 CFR S 50.55(e) at South Texas. /

In a Memorandum and Order dated June 2, 1982, the Board denied Mr. Doherty's first such request and refused to consider his second. For the reasons discussed below,

• / Mr. Doherty has filed both a Motion to Reopen and a separate document entitled "Intervenor Doherty's Con-tention 59." It is apparently his belief that if his pleading is not styled as a " motion," he has a right to reply to responses by the other parties under the Appeal Board's ruling in this proceeding in ALAB-565.

However, ALAB-565, which discusses the rights of peti-tioning parties to orally support their petitions at the intervention stage of a proceeding, obviously has no relevance to a motion to admit a late-filed contention after the record has been closed. As the Board recognized -

in its June 2, 1982, Memorandum and Order, Mr. Doherty's request is a motion to reopen the record no matter what words appear on the heading, and the rules do not afford him a right of reply.

8206300221 820628 PDR ADOCK 05000466 0 PDR 38

Applicant believes that Mr. Doherty's latest filing is both improper and insufficient to support the relief requested.

Applicant therefore urges the Board to deny, once again, Mr. Doherty's motion.

Mr. Doherty's filing, in large part, reiterates his May 24, 1982, " Reply" which was stricken by the Board as impermissible under 10 C.F.R. S 2.730(c). In Applicant's view, the Commission's rules, which prevent moving parties from filing replies except with leave of the Board, may not be circumvented by simply refiling the same argument after the Board has issued its ruling. For this reason alone, Mr. Doherty's effort to obtain consideration of his improper filing should be summarily rejected.

In any event, Mr. Doherty's latest filing fails to remedy fundamental deficiencies in his earlier unsuccessful effort to have this contention admitted by the Board. /

In particular, while Mr. Doherty has now listed his own i

l paraphrased interpretations of certain Quadrex findings which he alleges to be reportable under S 50.55(e), he has not even attempted to explain why he believes these items constitute l

-*/ The Applicant set forth in detail the reasons why the Board should reject this late-filed contention in its May 7, 1982, " Response to Intervenor Doherty's Motion to Add Contention 58." Applicant asks that its earlier l filing be incorporated herein and considered by the Board.

l l

l

l S 50.55(e) violations. The listed items are categorized under the subparts of S 50.55(e), but Mr. Doherty has not provided any basis for his chosen categorizations nor any analysis of the listed " findings" under the standards set forth in S 50.55(e). As Applicant explained previously, the Quadrex Report itself makes no judgments as to whether any of its findings constituted reportable deficiencies.

Moreover, HL&P's determinations as to what matters should have been reported are supported by the preliminary assessment of the Quadrex Report conducted by the Bechtel Corporation.

(Tr. 21568-69). Thus, the alleged bLais for Mr. Doherty's new contention remains without support.

Mr. Doherty has also again failed to provide a reason-able explanation for his failure to timely raise this issue when the Board granted him an opportunity to do so late last year. In addition to his prior argument, rejected by the Board, that he thought he would be able to raise these matters at the April reopened hearings, Mr. Doherty now alleges that the Board's November 10, 1981, Order did not permit him to raise this Quadrex-related issue. In fact, Mr. Doherty was directed at that time to raise everything in the Quadrex Report which in his view demonstrated that HL&P does not have the organization and competence to adequately construct the ACNGS. It is a simple fact that Mr. Doherty's Contention 59 was not raised when he submitted I

4-his issues (A) through (0) based on the Quadrex Report.

His new contention is therefore extremely tardy.

Finally, Mr. Doherty has provided no new grounds for altering the Board's recent Order reaffirming its conclusion that Contention 59 (b) is only marginally relevant to this proceeding, and does not justify reopening the record.

Mr. Doherty's motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: d eb LOWENSETIN, NEWMAN, Jack R. Newman REIS & AXELRAD David B. Raskin 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20036 BAKER & BOTTS J. Gregory Copeland 3000 One Shell Plaza Scott E. Rozzell Houston, Texas 77002 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 l

ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY l

l l

l I

l t

_, - , - . )

f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Response To Doherty's Motion To Reopen The Record in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid this 28th day of June, 1982.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Susan Plettman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.

Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Honorable Frank Petter 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 Judge, Austin County Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Scott W. Stucky Docket and Service Station Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of Board Panel the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard Black, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulator; Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

l .

2-i James M. Scott, Jr.

John F. Doherty 4327 Alconbury Street 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77021 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 TexPirg William Schuessler Att: Clarence Johnson 5810 Darnell Executive Director Houston, Texas 77074 Box 237 U.C.

University of Houston Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.

Houston, Texas 77004 P. O. Box 592 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Carro Hinderstein Bryan L. Baker 609 Fannin Street Suite 521 1923 Hawthorne Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77098 D. Marrack J. Morgan Bishop 420 Mulberry Lane Margaret Bishop Bellaire, Texas 77401 11418 Oak Spring Houston, Texas 77043 Brenda McCorkle 6140 Darnell W. Matthew Perrenod Houston, Texas 77074' 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77024 V. O. " Butch" Carden, Jr.

City Attorney Wayne Ren_ fro City of Wallis P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 P. O. Box A East- Bernard, Texas 77435 h l 1

-