ML20099E663

Response to Applicant Amended Motion to Dismiss Proceeding. Motion Lacks Basis in Fact or Law.Dismissal of Motion Advised.Establishment of Prehearing Discovery Schedule Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20099E663
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/21/1984
From:	Remis S, Shapiro R, Thurber J NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-262 OL, NUDOCS 8411260002
Download: ML20099E663 (6)

Text

M., a, 00D(ETED USNRc-L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '84 NOV 23 P2:45 L WQMF Elant.v, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND *$NS$ch LICENSING BOARD IN'THE MATTER OF PUBLIC  :

SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS  :

CO. ,' et al. ,  : DOCKET NO. 50-354-OL (HOPE CREEK GENERATING  :

STATION UNIT I)  :

]

INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS'- '

AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDIN_G

-On November 19, 1984, the-Department of the Public Advocate of the 1 l

State of New Jersey, the intervenor in this proceeding, received what is )

, styled the Applicants' Amended Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding. This motion is not only mystifying, but it is also frivolous and fails to state any reasonable grounds for dismissal.

A brief review of the recent course of events in this proceeding j reveals the confused nature of Applicants' latest motion. In response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's August 10, 1984, order, the l

Public Advocate on August 24, 1984, duly identified the names and addresses of each of his three expert witnesses. On that date, the Public Advocate also filed a separate Petition requesting additional time within which to make these expert witnesses available for depositions. In that Petition, the Public Advocate advised the Bosrd that the extensive prior commitments of the expert witnesses precluded their availability until the month of October 1984. The Public Advocate further noted that time would be needed to prepare the experts to assure meaningful and productive deposi-tions . For these reasons, the Public Advocate requested a one-month p s

fok N ONN4 e PM

e:ictension of time within which to make his experts' reasonably available for deposition by ' Applicants.

The Applicants' then filed a motion to dismiss. Mischaracterizing the Public Advocate's request for additional time and prior decisions of the Board, Applicants sought dismissal, even though there is absolutely

~

'no precedent to support such an extreme sanction in-the circumstances of this proceeding. The Public Advocate filed his Response to this naotion to dismiss on September 11, 1984, and the motion is presently under advisement.

More than two months later, Applicants submitted the instant " Amended" motion to dismiss the proceeding. The motion does not present any meritor-ious ground for dismissal. First, the motion wholly ignores the fact that the Applicants' allegations and complaints relating to discovery in this pro-

+

ceeding are presently ur. der consideration by this Board. In his response of September 11, 1984, the Public Advocate explicitly stated his willingness to facilitate discovery and listed the expert witnesses that would be avau ,

able for depositions. Additionally, the Pubhc Advocate requested that the Board establish a comprehent,ive pre-hearing discovery schedule to govern these proceedings. These matters, as well as those issues raised by the -applicants, have not yet been resolved by the Board. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the applicants to suggest that the Public Advocate has failed to fulfill obligations when the precise nature of these duties has not yet been established.

Second, it is utter nonsense for the applicants to suggest that the Public Advocate somehow failed to "come forward to make his witnesses

for depositions as promised." (p. 2). It is the Applicants, and not the

Public Advocate, that have " delayed and avoided" the depositions of

__ _ . .- . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ .._ .., __._.___._ __. _ . . . _

I l

these witnessen. Applicants have' taken abschitely n_o steps to notice depositions of g of the Public Advocate's expert witnesses. While they profess to be eager to proceed, they have let the entire month of October and now most of November pass without taking that requisite first step. Certainly, it is the Applicants and not the Public Advocate a

that are ' responsible for preparMg and serving deposition notices on the Public Advccate's expert witnesses. As the Public Advocate represanted to-the Board, these experts have been available for the past several ,

weeks, and the applicants have failed to provide a single credible fact to suggest otherwise.

In short, the Applicants' motion lacks any basis in fact or law.

Without reiterating the assertions in the Public Advocate's response of 4

September U,1984, the record reflects that this Department seeks to protect the health and safety interests cf the citizens of the State of New Jersey in this proceeding. The Public Advocate is willing to take L the appropriate steps to ensure that these interests can be fully pro-f tected within the time schedule established by the Board. The Public

Advocate therefore renews his request for the establishment of a pre-hearing discovery schedule to enable all parties to address the merits l

of our contentions in an orderly and expeditious manner.

i

! l 4

1 i - . . -- - - - - . - . . . - , . - . _ . - .._- . . . . . . - - _ . . . - - - . . . . .

~~^

~

\. _

. , y N

3 p ':.

-. ./ y _ ,

' CONCLUSION [

• > f ,{,

..; w m For these reasons, the Board sho6Td deny Applicants' " Amended . '

y ,,

Motion" to dismiss and should establish a prehearing discovery schedule. , .;

3.,

Respectfully submitted, w JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ v '

s

\

v PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF NEW JERSEY ~

~,

_y,.,

- , ~,  ; s By:!h//[//// /A.j2tL '

' "^'""'"**""

/' .r y4 ,

By: _.

SUSAN C. REMIS 4

3 .s By: TMN v JOHN P. THURBER - .,

Counsel for Intervenoy f % . .

Q

,a_ .,<.

t DATED: November 21,1981 a 3

rg M.' N #4 4

e 4

)

i 4.

g .!

l

. 4

~ ,

1

OctxETU UstRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing bh 0FfCE03SElf*d P PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND  : 00CstynG&gEbVC R

GAS COMPANY  : Docket No? S00354-OL (Hope Creek Generating Station)  :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Intervenor's Response to Applicants' .

Amended Motion to Dismiss," dated November 21, 1984 in the abovesaptioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail on this 21st day of November,1984:

Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Atomic Safety and Chairman Licensing Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Peter A. Morris Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

.. Dr. David R. Schink Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 n

. . - - - . -, - - . - - , . - . . - , - , . . - . . - ~ . . . . . - - - - .

, }

': 1,; .,

Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20553 Richard Fryling, Jr. , Esq.

Associate General Counsel Public Service Electric &

Gas Company P.O. Box 570 (TSE) >

Newark, NJ 07101 i

j Troy Conner, Jr. , Esq. J Conner & Wetterhahn /- '

1747 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.W.

Sttite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20006 Peter Hess, Esq.

Dept. of National- Resources

and Environmental Control Legal Office -

89 Kings Highway Dover, DE. 19901 Mr. Ken Koschek Planning Group Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey CN 402 Trenton, NJ 08625

~

$ N1A >

1 ANNETTE PAGE 6 November 21, 1984

._ _ _ - _ _ _ _