ML20003D227

Responds to ASLB 810213 Notice of Prehearing Conference & Submits Proposed Agenda.Includes Schedule for Hearing,Filing Testimony,Sequence of Presentation of Testimony & Applicant Motion for Extension of Time

ML20003D227
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	03/09/1981
From:	Newman J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Bechhoefer C, John Lamb, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20003D228	List: ML20003D227 ML20003D229
References
NUDOCS 8103190647
Download: ML20003D227 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- e Lad Orr CCS LOWENSTEIN, NEwxAN, REIs & AXEI. RAD IC2S CONN ECtiCUT AVEN U E. M. W sostav Lo.t=sts.m WAS MINGTON, D, C. 2 003 6 s.cu a =,c .=

   =.so6o      scis
   ..wecsanc. .s m.e=sct=       s=c..

202 862-8400 yg I ]] / p/ s a scu.= a=' sa

                .. c.
                                                                                               //

y - gh

   ..c=.c6 news .sa a cc.

7 "ctW D D

                                                                                           .W y,.R , 4J**?=b.
   ,assao.....~<.
   .a nn, ,e.. s.

s 4 -

   ..... co.....=.=
   .., = , c o . c o .

Jgpd > CIre' a C,I2  %. co,zcet

   -e .a a. cw6 eu,,,                                                                                 uceret.,, 9, fl::n..y
      ..c. . .. .:
   ,arctoc s      o=.*

af,,cyert:3 y, y 6vm aw' re .= 9/ o.w o a .o 's u - / f,. og g o...e . .....~ 004.k3 s Seks tene.se

   .......                                                       March 9,      1981 Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission Washington, D. C.      20555                                          g  9         4
                                                                                        /

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke /

                                                                                                    .' hA Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                           [j[[f NfQ j fQ [g g

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Ay "na

                                                                                               mI      Qp8 I381      f2 h{

Dr. James C. Lamb, III * (# Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road ***\ Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 In the Matter of Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) l Dockets Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 Gentlemen: In the Notice of Prehearing Conference dated February 13, 1981, the Board invited cach party to submit by March 13 a proposed agenda for the conference, specifying matters they wished to discuss. Applicants suggest that the following matters be included on the agenda for the prehearing conference 6i l, I 810s19o W7 G -

l'

  - Lowzxntax. NrwxAx, Rain Sc '.*acrz.cas Charles 3echhoefer Dr. r.;eth A. Luehke Dr. James C. La. .b , III

y. arch 9, 1931 pace Two cn P. arch 17:

(i) a w.e A

                                          ,.          .se. e.        ..e w   ,
                                                                            .'  ..   .3  a...d. .e.a.ed
                                                                                                            . s  .w..ad..'e.      #..-

filine. testi=cnv.. (2) Sequence of presentation of testi=cny at the

                                       ..ea w         4
                                               ..3      .

(3) n' e r- l.' e a.. ' s .v~- . 4 .. .' c - Ex .a...s .i r.. ,.,,.# ". ' - e .4 . W'...'..". to File F.ctions to Cc pel Answers to Interroga-

                                        . c . .3 e s .       (n'e-- l .i . a.. , ' s .v~- ..' a .. c' .T.a."a v .'c, .' .c..: ' ) .
                           ."c
                            *ll
                                     .h.a.      4
                                                     #m      3 .

4m c .E .h.e

                                                                                    .. 3ea A a.
                                                                                                  .      A..  ..h.e am e       .. 4as, Applicants' c.osition concerninv the foregoinc =atters is as
                 .s.n,. ln.
                          .. .s .

s .w.. e a . *. .. y a..d v. .' .' ' . . 3 c ' . a s *. .*- - .r -

                            .c  .s. e .e. ..se        .                            .

By letter of January 26, 1931, the NRC Staff infer =ed the Scard that its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) en Applicants'

                =anaY e=ent c.ualifications for cceration and CA-Cc c. rec.ra:           .

for operation would be delayed until early April. The NRC Staff suv.ested c that the hearinc. on these issues (essentially . Issues C and F) .be delayed until a subsequent session in late June 1931, but that the hearing en all other issues proceed in early y.ay, as originally conte = plated. Applicants "w a3.a.ed. w.... k..'s su-~3e 3 s .' c . .i .. *.*.a.

                                                                              .             .   ..' - le    .e. c.'   r k-
                                                                                                                        .e.
                                                                                                                                         ^

a.2" , 1931.

                                                                 ~

The intervencrs did not respond to the foregoing corre-spondence. vcwever, by letter dated "2-27-31" (copies received by Applicants were post =arke F. arch 4, 1931) , P.rs. Suchern , Executive Director of CEU, suggested that the hearing and related silestones be delayed three scnths because of her illness.. Although Applicants have atte=pted to be cecperative in light of F.rs..Buchern's illness -- for exa ple, as noted

                .below, Ac.clicants have patientiv. waited for her response to Applicants' disecvery requests -- they believe that the illness of a single individual cannot covern the schedule of the hearing, particularly since F.rs. Suchern clains to represert an organization with over 5,000 =enbers in the

Lowenststw, NzwxAs, Rz2s & AXzLDAD Charles Bechhoefer Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. James C. Lamb, III March 9, 1981 Page Three area of interest (Petiticr. for Leave to Intervene of Citizens for Public Utilities, Inc., February 23, 1979, page 2). A three-month delay would not be consistent with the Com-mission's directive that the Board proceed expeditiously in this matter. 4 Accordingly, Applicants suggest that the Board schedule the hearing to commence at the earliest date in May accept-able to the Board on all issues (including intervenors' contentions), except on Issues C and F, and require that all testimony (except Issues C and F) be served 15 days prior to the scheduled start of the hearing. , At the prehearing conference the Board should obtain the NRC Staff's latest estimate.on the issuance date of the

                 .SER and schedule a hearing session on Issues C and F or inform the parties when it will do so. Service of testimony on Issues C and F should be required 15 days prior to the scheduled start of that session.

Sequence of Presentation of Testimony I On March 2, Applicants filed their Identification of ( Witnesses and Substance of Testimony. The NRC Staff simi-larly identified its witnesses on that date. Intervenors having failed to identify any witnesses by Meech 2, as l required by the Board's Order, should be deer.;d to have j waived any right to present direct testimony. I In view of the related nature of many of the issues and l contentions, Applicants suggest that they be permitted to l first present all of their testimony, except on Issues C and F (i.e., except the panel consisting of Messrs. Oprea, l Goldberg, Moles and Frazar described at.page 11 of Applicants' March 2 filing). The NRC Staff would t' hen present all of j -its testimony, except.on. Issues C and F. Any rebuttal ! testimony on these matters by Applicants would follow. l l At the subsequent hearing session on Issues C and F, l the same' sequence for presentation of testimony would be followed. In order that the parties may be able to schedule the I i

               -                         ,        ~  , .            ,   .-

Lcwzw=Tzrx, NewM AN, Rzzs & Axzt.nAo Charles Bechhoefer Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. James C. Lamb, III March 9, 1981 Page Four appearances of their witnesses, Applicants request that the Board inform the parties of its intentions concerning the time frame for the conduct of the hearings. Applicants suggest that once the hearing begins, it be conducted five days per week until its conclusion. Applicants also suggest that the Board establish ap-proximate time periods for the appearance of each witness or panels of witnesses. Finally, in view of the number of witnesses involved and the difficulties in scheduling appearances with pre-cision, Applicants request that the Board express its will-ingness to accommodate the logistical needs of individual witnesses, including the Board's willingness to hear the testimony of such witnesses out-of-sequence if circumstances so require. Applicants' Motion of January 16, 1981 In their Motion of January 16, 1981, Applicants identi-fied a number of their discovery requests to which CCANP and CEU had not yet responded. Applicants indicated that they were continuing their informal efforts to obtain voluntary responses from the i-tervenors. Since that time, Applicanta have received an informal response dated February 21, 1981, from counsel for CCANP, which included unsworn answers to items 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Exhibit No. 1 to Applicants' Motion of January 16, 1981. Applicants have received no response from CCANP to the interrogatories discussed in the Applicants' Motion to Compel dated April 15, 1980, or to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents dated December 5, 1980 (Exhibit No. 4 to Applicants' Motion of January 16, 1981). Applicants have-received'no response from CEU to the interrogatories discussed in Applicants' Motion to Compel dated May 8, 1980,.or to the interrogatories and requests

Lows,x2Tzrx, NzwxAN, Rzzs & Axzz.=An Charles Bechhoefer Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. James C. Lamb, III March 9, 1981 Page Five for production dated December 5, 1980 (Exhibit No. 4 to Applicants' Motion of January 16, 1981). In light of the delays and, for the most part, the failure in obtaining voluntary responses from CCANP and CEU, Applicants will ask at the prehearing conference that the Board issue an order compelling CCANP and CEU to respond to the pending, unanswered discovery requests. Very truly yours, Newman

                                             '/ Jack R.
                                             ' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW

[,/ Washington, DC 20036' Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Project Manager of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, THE CITY OF SAN ANTO"IO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public. Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS OF COUNSEL: LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS,

                    & AXELRAD

1025 Connecticut Avenue, Nd Washington, DC 20036 BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002}}