ML20008F771
| ML20008F771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1981 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105120015 | |
| Download: ML20008F771 (7) | |
Text
o 05/08/81 6
UNITED STATES OF A1 ERICA g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0'#11SSION 4 /
a R$[ fig s
'ME} 1198f
--g BEFORE THE AT0!!!C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
.)
fj HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466
{P (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR NEW CROSS-EXAMINATION PROCEDURES On April 29, 1981, the Applicant filed a motion requesting that the Licensing Board adopt new procedures to govern the conduct of cross-examination during the health and safety phase of this 4
proceeding. For the reasons set forth below, the Staff supports Applicant's motion.
The Commission's regulations (10 C.F.R. 5 2.718 and 5 2.757) and relevant NRC case law (e.g., Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857, 866-69, reconsideration denied, ALAB-252, 8 AEC 1175, aff'd., CLI-75-1,1 NRC 1 (1975)), give a licensing board the requisite legal and regulatory authority to impose procedural restrictions on cross-examination.
See "NRC Staff's Response to TEXPIRG's Motion for Reconsideration of Various Rulings During Evidentiary Hearings, and for Certification of Various Issues to the Appeal Board," dated March 13, 1981. Consistent with this authority, this Licensing Board is empowered to take appropriate action to avoid delay, to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of 810512 cots 5
-2 t
the participants.
Previously in this proceeding, the Board has invoked its discretionary authority to impose certain restrictions and prohibitions on the right of cross-exanination by intervenors. The Staff has supported the Board's imposition of these procedural restrictions given the posture of this case and the circumstances surrounding the reasons for the restrictions.
Id.
The Applicant has now requested the Board to impose another procedure to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants. This requested procedure would require the lead or sponsoring party on each contention to cross-examine Applicant and Staff witnesses first.
If any other intervenor wishes to undertake additional cross-examination, that intervenor would be required to file a cross-examination plan with the Board, at least one day in advance of that witness's appearance before the Board. The cross-examination plan should specify the portion (page and line number) of the witness's testinony that the cross-examiner intends to explore, and the point or points the cross-examiner hopes to adduce with respect to that portion of the testimony.
Upon a showing by any intervenor that additional cross-examination will be relevant and will assist in the development of a full record, the Board will permit cross-examination in addition to that of the lead party.
The Staff supports this additional requested procedure. The posture of this proceeding during the environmental hearing phase has been lengthy and encumbered.
In Staff's mind, much of the delay can be attributed to cross-examination that has been repetitious, cumulative or
3-i irrelevant. Whether such examination is the end result of a conscious effort to delay, or is the product of inadequate preparation or poor understanding of the subject matter is' immaterial. The C aple fact that needless delay in this proceeding is contrary to Commission policy and is not in the best interests of the public should reign paramount in the l
minds of the Board and the parties.M The conAncement of the safety hearing phase of this proceeding brings to issue contentions which are highly technical and specific with respect to the adequacy of plant design and equipment. These contentions regarding plant design and equipment have been mainly raised and pursued by two intervenors--TEXPIRG and Intervenor Doherty-2f whereas almost all the intervenors seemingly had a discernible interest in the environmental issues.
In this regard, we believe it is essential to
_1f As indicated in Applicant's Motion, p. 3, the Connission presently has under consideration a draf t " Policy Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Licensing Proceedings" (SECY-81-202B, April 24,1981) which recommends the consolidation of intervenors to present
- evidence, to conduct cross examination, to submit briefs, and to prepare findings of fact, conclusions of law, and argument absent a showing of prejudice or an incomplete record.
Draft Statement at
- p. 4-5.
The policy statement also reconaends that Boards require submittal of cross-examination plans.
Id. at 8.
This policy j
statement has not yet been adopted by the Commission.
y Intervenor Bishop has raised contentions with respect to the hazards i
of gas and other materials in the site vicinity and Intervenor McCorkle has raised issues with respect to poisonous gases in the control room and fuel rod hydriding.
i l
f 1
i
- __y,
,,,_.,,7,.,,,,.v,,
. i have scientific or technical education, training, or experience in order to fully understand the technical background of the safety issues and, consequently, to praperly prepare and conduct meaningful cross-examination on these 'ssues.
It would appear, at this point, that TEXPIRG and Intervenor Doherty have been diligently preparing for the litigation of their respective issues and that their preparation will result in a thorough and meaningful ventilation of the subject matter. Other intervenors have not expressed the extensive and detailed concerns regarding safety issues and, understandably, have not researched or prepared for litigation in a manner that would be of value to the development of a sound and full record. Thus, the lack of knowledge and minimal, if any, preparation with respect 1.0 these safety issues can only result in undue delay and a record that is replete with cumulative, repetitious, immaterial or irrelevant examination.
Finally, it is our opinion that the new procedures as requested by the Applicent will not prejudice the rights of any party. An intervenor who is not the lead or sponsoring party and who wishes to conduct examin-ation on any issue can pursue that examination in two ways.
First, the intervenor can give questions to the lead or sponsoring intervenor so that he/she can ask them.
Second, the intervenor can file a cross-exanination i
plan with the Board and will be allowed to pursue examination of the witness or witnesses if the proper showing is made. These alternatives assure that legitimate inquiry and concerns are not restricted.
Based on the foregoing, the NRC Staff submits that the Board should grant Applicant's motion for new cross-examination procedures because it is consistent with Commission policy and regulations which reflect the
O i public interest to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants to avoid delay.
Res tfully subni ed, A
' af
=lWc Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of May,1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0!tilSS10H BEFORE THE ATOl TIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUST0:1 LIGHTING AND POWER C0!!PAliY Docket No. 50-466 (Allens Creek fluclear Generating
)
Staticn, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICAriT'S MOTION FOR NEW CROSS-EXAMINATION PROCEDURES" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission's internal mail system, this 8th day of May, 1981:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chaiman*
Susan Plettnan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Hon. Jerry Sliva, liayor Route 3, Box 350A City of Wallis, TX 77485 Watkinsville, Georgia 30577 Hon. John R. Mikeska Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Austin County Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 310 Board Panel Bellville, TX 77418 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John F. Doherty 4327 Alconbury Street The Honorable Ron Waters Houston, TX
/7021 State Representative, District 79 3620 Washington Avenue, No. 362 Mr. William J. Schuessler Houston, TX 77007 5810 Darnell Houston, TX 77074 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002
. i Jack Newman, Esq.
D. Marrack Lowenstein, Reis Newman &
420 Mulberry Lane Axelrad Bellaire, TX 77401 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A. McCorkle c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
G140 Darnell 13935 Ivymount Houston, TX 77074 Sugarland, TX 77478 Mr. Wayne Rentfro Rosemary N. Lemmer P.O. Box 1335 11423 Oak Spring Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Carro Hinderstein Leotis Johnston 8739 Link Terrace 1407 Scenic Ridge Houston, TX 77025 Houston, TX 77043 Margaret Bishop U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission J. Morgan Bishop Region IV, I&E 11418 Oak Spring 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77043 Arlington, TX 76011 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Bryan L. Baker Pollan, Nicholson & Doggett 1923 Hawthorne P.O. Box 592 Houston, TX 77098 Rosenberg, TX 77471 itobin Griffith Carolina Conn 1034 Sally Ann 1414 Scenic Ridge Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Mr. William Perrenod Atomic Safety and Licensing 4070 Merrick Board Panel
- Houston, TX 77025 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
.t RicMard L. Slack Counsel for NRC Staff