ML20079P918

Response in Opposition to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (Ccanp) 830420 Motion for Deferral of Rulings & Extension of Deadlines Until 830617.CCANP Has Failed to Show Good Cause for Requested Deferrals.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20079P918
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/05/1983
From:	Newman J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8305110225
Download: ML20079P918 (8)

Text

__

' .i.,

ph '

$ 4Y . -lhy \ '.-

/7 jgj e4sL v" N \

p tm o.

4Q7{ ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA F. 1 4 -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . M' ,

[ /c(f BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U N' - _ _ . - ,

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, .ET AL.

) 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, Units )

1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR DEFERRAL OF RULINGS AND EXTENSION OF DEADLINES By motion dated April 20, 1983, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) has requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) defer ruling upon variour pending motions, and extend CCANP's time for responding to certain motions and discovery requests until June 17, 1983.1/ S nce CCANP has failed to show good cause for the requested deferrals, and some of the requested relief may cause an undue delay in the proceeding, CCANP's Motion should be cenied in its entirety.

However, under the existing circumstances, Applicants would not object to the granting of limited relief to the extent set forth below.

CCANP premises its Motion upon the alleged need of its representative (;Mr. Sinkin) to prepare for his law school final CCANP Motion for Deferral of Rulings and Extension of

-*/ Deadlines (April 20, 19 8 3 ) (" Motion") .

5 8305110225 830505 PDR ADOCK 05000498

-" ()

Q PDR

9 examinations,- / and argues that the relief it seeks will not delay resolution of any issues which were to be heard on an expedited basis. Motion at 1-2. The Board has clearly pro-vided, however, that any findings made upon the Phase I record will remain subject to modification on the basis of evidence obtained in the Phase II proceeding,- / and thus any delay in the completion of Phase II will prolong a complete resolution of Phase I.  !

• / Although the Board may consider the convenience of the parties in scheduling matters, a party has an obliga-I tion to request desired schedule changes in a timely manner. Mr. Sinkin was well aware when I&E Report 82-12 was issued in January, that the discovery period would run until April 22, 1983, and that he would be in law school throughout that period. If he thought -

that CCANP would not be able to comply with its discovery -

obligations during that time, Mr. Sinkin should have reqdested relief immediately, to permit the board to rule '

in a timely fashion, rather than waiting until the period was over and CCANP was in default.

Furthermore, it is unclear why Mr. Sinkin's alleged un-availability should prevent CCANP from meeting its obliga-tions in a timely manner. At different times throughout t this proceeding, CCANP has been represented by numerous individuals, and in fact, another representative in addition to Mr. Sinkin, Ms. Pat Coy, is included on the current service list.

• • / Fourth Prehearing Conference Order at 5 (December 16, 1981).

• • • / In addition, the Commission has explicitly encouraged the expeditious conduct of adjudicatory proceedings, and has urged its adjudicatory boards to satisfy themselves that the " good cause" requirement of 10 CFR S2.711(a) has been met before granting extensions of time. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 453-54 (1981). The Commission has also noted that requests for time extensions should be received "well oefore the time specified expires." Id. at 454-55.

t I

- , -- _,.-.._m _ _ _ , - . _ . _ , . , . . - , - ,

CCANP first requests that the Board defer ruling upon its late motion to add a contention regarding Applicants' financial qualifications. / Motion at 1. CCANP acknowledges that that motion is defective, but argues that if the Board chooses to deny the motion based upon the absence of an affidavit, CCANP "will expend unnecessary time and resources refiling the motion with the necessary affidavit." Id.

CCANP erroneously presumes that it has an unfettered right to refile its motion and to correct its original deficiencies.

No such right, however, is provided by the Commission's Rules of Prectice. Furthermore, all filings necessary for the Board to rule have been submitted, and no addicional effort en CCANP's .

part need be expended prior to the Board's decision. Mr.

Sinkin need not take any time away from his law school studies for this purpose.

CCANP also requests that the Board extend the time for it to file answers to Applicants' interrogatories on the hurricane design contention (Contention 4 ) , **/ and defer ruling upon any motions to compel filed by Applicants on the basis of CCANP's failure to respond to those interrogatories.***/ CCANP asserts that it is "[u]nfamiliar with the technical details" of its contention, and has had " inadequate time available to prepare a response." Motion at 2.

• / CCANP Motion for New Contention (March 18, 1983).

Applicants' Seventh Set of Interrogatories 7.nd Requests for

--**/ Production of Documents to CCANP (March 28, 1983).

• • • / Applicants did in fact file a motion to compel on April 27, 1983. See Applicants' Motion to Compel Answers to Its Seventh Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to CCANP.

Applicants would have expected that CCANP would have become familiar with Contention 4 before seeking to adopt it or during discovery. In any event, CCANP's request for an extension of time to respond to Applicants' Seventh Set of Interrogatories was filed after its time to respond had expired and should therefore be denied. Furthermore, having failed to submit any response at all to Applicants' interrogatories, CCANP has no grounds for opposing Appli-cants' motion to compel. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Board to defer ruling upon that motion.

CCANP also seeks an extension of time to respond to Applicants' motion to compel answers to its interrogatories regarding the Quadrex-related issues,-* / and asks the Board to defer ruling on the motion. Although CCANP did submit a late response to those interrogatories,- / it admits that it "did not respond directly to the questions Applicants asked." Motion at 2.

[ While a delay in responding to Applicants' motion to i

compel would be unlikely to delay the proceeding, in view of the Board's contemplated schedule for the prehearing con-

-*/ Applicants' Motion to Compel Answers to Its Sixth Set of Interrogatories and for Leave to File Additional t Interrogatories to CCANP (April 18, 1983).

• • / CCANP Response to Applicants' Sixth Set of Interroga-tories and Requests for Production of Documents to CCANP (April 4, 1983).

1

o ference, / Applicants see no reason why CCANP should receive a protracted deferral until June 17 to respond to that motion. Clearly, any relief granted should be calculated from May 12, 1983, the day that CCANP's alleged disability terminates by reason of Mr. Sinkin's completion of his final examinations. Therefore, despite CCANP's untimely and incomplete response, Applicants do not object to an extension of ten (10) days from May 12, 1983, for CCANP to respond to their motion to compel.

Finally, CCANP asks the Board to extend the time for responding to any motion for summary disposition which Applicants "may file

• on the Phase II issues, and to defer ruling upon such a motion. Motion at 2. No such motion has as yet been filed, and Applicants have no intention of moving for sammary disposition on any issue before Mr.

Sinkin completes his final examinations in May. Therefore, the Board should deny this aspect of CCANP's Motion as well.

For the reasons stated above, Applicants do not object to an extension of ten (10) days from May 12, 1983 for CCANP to respond to Applicants' motion to compel answers to their Sixth Set of Interrogatories. In all other respects, CCANP's l */ Moreover, Applicants have indicated that they do not

, object to the Attorney General of Texas being granted

( an extension of discovery until July 21, 1983, based upon unique circumstances applicable to the Attorney General. Applicants' Response to Attorney General of Texas' Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline (May 3, 1983).

i 6

Motion for Deferral of Rulings and extension of Deadlines should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

,( lLLM ack R. Newman l aurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Donald J. Silverman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Finis E. Cowan Thomas B. Hudson, Jr.

3000 One Shell Plaza ,

Houston, Texas 77002 ,

Dated: May 5, 1983 '

ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING

& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS of the South Texas Project acting

& AXELRAD, P.C. herein on behalf of itself and 4 1025 Connecticut, N.W. the other Applicants, THE CITY OF Washington, D.C. 20036 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service BAKER & BOTTS Board of the City of San Antonio, 3000 One Shell Plaza CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Houston, Texas 77002 and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

- - - , - - - - - -& v c- -

v- ---,-w

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

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 )

and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Response to CCANP Motion for Deferral of Rulings and Extension of Deadlines dated May 5, 1983, have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the U.S.

Mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 5th day cf May, r 1983.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Brian Berwick, Esq.

Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P.C. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Administrative Judge Harmon & Weiss 313 Woodhaven Road 1725 I Street, N.W.

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Washington, D.C. 20006 Ernest E. Hill Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Administrative Judge Barbara A. Miller Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Pat Coy University of California Citizens Concerned About P.O. Box 808, L-46 Nuclear Power Livermore, CA 94550 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, TX 78233 Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Executive Director Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable 2207-D Nueces Utilities, Inc. Austin, TX 78705 Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, TX 77422 Robert G. Perlis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear hegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

e 1 1

l 0

l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1Lt $ ',.h t01in - - -

ack R. Newman(

J f

i l

t i

I l

_ - _ - - . . _ . - - _ . - .