ML19347D972

Response to NRC & Applicant Responses to J Doherty 810222 Motion for Reconsideration of Admission of Contention 21. Filing of Motion Was Timely Under Circumstances. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19347D972
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/31/1981
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8104140543
Download: ML19347D972 (2)

Text

'

n g March 31, 1981 -gi N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CCCMETED {

p o- t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 01g ,

{ll*

_ APR

) Cum 9 " ? P~'"'I f In the Matter of:

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.

)

/,

Om a '"yc Docket No. 50-466 CP D a (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Cr Station, Unit 1

)

JOHN F. DOHERTY'S RESPONSE TO STAFF AND APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO HIS ,N MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS CONTENTION #2 Q@\[M(t',d af,$. %j '( !! . G\

N On February 22, 1981, John F. Doherty, Intervenor pro-se in thy,N 3, M'k/[S #

J above proceedings filed a motion titled "Intervenor Doherty's Motiodmtfo[us,*,Q. d 3 t.G/ a --

Reconsideration of His Amended C.ontention #21". Applicant and Staf ~'4?f ].

responded, the latter on March 24, 1981. As the Board has previous d,,~ v %,i, '/

permitted oral response to Staff and Applicant responses to Contention $ /, . .{'j,V raised by Intervenors, this response is filed. That is, it is filed 1. M '

in the belief it is the most expedient method for determining whether Contention #21 should be a part of the evidentiary hearings.

In its response, Staf f ( and in part Applicant) have raised the issue of timliness. Staff believes there are two deliniable periods where this Ir: p:rvenor has lacked dilligence in pursuing this Motion, and that hence it should be denied. First, Staf f believes this Inter-venor should be denied because he did not pursue the Reed Report dilligently prior to January 5, 1981. Staff has misunderstood the history with regard to the Reed Report and this Intervenor. A review of this Intervenor's fil ings will show that Contention #21 was never used as a basis for requesting any. of the Reed Report material, because of the orignal Contention's denial on March 10 1980. However, no material shown this Intervenor contained anything hinting that Contention #21 was relevant to the Reed Report until this Intervenor,who attempted to obtain through subpoena the 8 full sections of the Reed Report, saw some " verbatim" abstracts of the report. Hence, at no time can it be fairly said this Intervenor should have filed a motion for reconsideration on Contention #21 prior to this time (See Staff's Response of March 24, 1981, f.n. 4, page 2).

Next, Staff argues this Intervenor has not cause for having filed on Feb. 22, 1981, a delay of 48 days. This Intervenor believes the record shows he has cross-examined and re-crossed on Board questions 100?. of the l

witnesses, s

filed five filings with regard to the Reed Report, and six r i additional filings including several contentions. Staff might be questioned g\

as to just how much effort would meet its dilligence standard in regard to h )

this 48 day period. Surely it must admit this Intervenor has been active f in these proceedings.

810.41405% G

=

i 1

P00R ORIGINAL In addition, Staf f unaccountab] f ilt to note in its advise at the top of Page 4 of its Response that although the Reed Report is six years old, its inaccessability is a factor in making it essentially new to the public.

W'.at follows,and constitutes the bulk of Staff's arguement,is material by which the Staff might argue a motion for Summary Dispo-sition or in an evidentiary hearing. As the Appeal Board stated, in Miscissi'7i ?over S Licht Co. (Grand 'lulf Huclear Sta-tion. Units 1 e 2) .lLA3-130, 6 AEC 423, (1973), "We stress that in rassi g upon the question as to ./hether an in-tervention petition should he granted, it is n3t the function of the licensing boarl to ranch the 7erits of an7 contention contained therein." (at '23) The cetitioner in that case had a sin 71e contention. However, it is interestin- to note t'lat Staff has based its wou11-be case on a docunent sizned 18 da s before the request for rec nsideration. (Staff Res,onse,

?. a, rnd f.n. 7)

Finally, this Intervenor would point out that darating of the ranctor would mean both 2nvironmental la.2 e -lue to in-creased use of li 7nite or coal for replace =ent, and da. ace to his safety interest as well, because 7ollutants from such fossil fuels are injurious to health. (Jee: A?alicant's Testi.on7 on Do 7 e tt C:ntention 1(b), of Deccaber13,1980, p. 33).

Based or the forcoing reasons, Intervenor urges the Board to favora51: act on this Response, and admit his Contention

1. 21 on the i: adequacy of void reactivity coefficient calculations for the G. E. BdR-6, 233".

Rec'eetfully,

[

ohn F. Dohert7

][.h.

, ,:. ,,=

w,. --

L,,,. ,. s ,a _. ms

, , , .,3i u,s.,

IherW 'ertify that co,ies ,f" v "JOHH,n,F.,Tdol 322?'3 Rh '_'C"Il TO

,A.n. .u.a, ..u T_ Ic.m..m. i 'a .,r-s a: m.

n m m_.:. u.._ r,,r,.r r,7 .m.. . ,, o ce o . . .:_~, r - ,.n.m , . . . - r ",. 7no

- ~ .. o 7-

~.

~-

. a 1 J m',. .n* m. Ir. ".

. . . . ._-. O"..z"r21" 'u^nze 'o - oe ed on the aarties below b~ First Class U. S. Postal dervice, fraa Housi;on, Tenas , thib /d of A?ril, 1931.

Sh311on J. Wolfe, 2sq., Gustave A. Linanberger, Dr. E. Leonard

Richard Black, Esq. Staff;Cheatua; Docie A A'.ainistrative ng e aervice; Jud esmd. , t j

omi,c safe.t? & Licensing 3.n l

J. Grerory Copelan '., Esq. , Jack R. 'euman, 2sq. ; Applicant.

Atomic 3afety Licensing Apaeal 30ard.