ML19305C640
| ML19305C640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003310194 | |
| Download: ML19305C640 (3) | |
Text
-
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
A ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 000KFE3 U;::?c 0
~
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman E
MAR 14 D80 > I
-g Michael C. Farrar k"' 4 A%hi!:0PM C!th Sutary Thomas S. Moore N
N.aies
'sErgg Y
)
m In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A
_e t _al.
)
50-499A (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A
_e t _al.
)
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ORDER March 13, 1980 The Texas Utilities Generating Campany (TUGCO) has peti-tioned under 10 CFR 2.718(i) for directed certification of a March 7, 1980 oral ruling of the Licensing Board 1! requiring the production of certain documents on the joint motion of the Department of Justice and the NRC staff.
TUGCO also asks that the Licensing Board's stay of the effectiveness of its ruling (now due to expire on March 17, 1980 2/) be extended pending 1/
Tr. 603-06.
_2/
Tr. 609-10.
l 800381019(p
our disposition of the petition.
On a preliminary examination of the papers filed with us, we conclude that any action on the petition should await the receipt of responses by those parties in opposition to the re-lief sought by TUGCO.
Those responses are to be in the hands of this Board no later than the close of business on March 20, 1980 and should address not merely the question of whether directed certification is warranted but, as well, the merits of the controversy.1/
Should we decide to hold oral argument, it will take place on the morning of Thursday, March 27, 1980 in Bethesda, Maryland. 1/
In order to preserve this Board's jurisdiction over the matter, the stay of the effectiveness of the challenged ruling is extended pending our further order.
3/
It is unclear whether any party other than TUGCO intends
~~
to seek review of the ruling below by way of a petition for directed certification.
If so, any such petition must be in the hands of counsel for the other parties by no later than the' close of business tomorrow, March 14.
This will insure each party opposing directed certifica-tion will have a reasonable opportunity to respond to all those who favor such relief.
--4/
We will advise the parties in this regard no later than the close of business on March 24, 1980.
At the same time, we will inform the petitioner (s) whether it will be necessary to make the disputed documents available for our in camera inspection.
Counsel should now take the steps necessary to insure that, if called for, those docu-ments can be delivered to us within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
i L._
=
. It is so ORDERED.
FOR TIIE APPEAL BOARD 0.
C. JeaQBishop Secretary to the Appeal Board e
4 l
i