ML19305C652
| ML19305C652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1980 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003310222 | |
| Download: ML19305C652 (3) | |
Text
.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
l
~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
//
Decemo g
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
~b MR 211980 > 7 Michael C. Farrar 4
[6 Thomas S. Moore Office of tha Secretay Docketiat & Sanien 6
' [3
)
In the Matter of
)
y
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A
_ET A_L.
)
50-499A
)
(South Te.xas Project, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A
_ET _AL.
)
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
ORDER March 21, 1980 The petitions for directed certification of the Licensing Board's March 7, 1980 oral ruling-1/are calendared for argument at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 27, 1980 in the NRC Public Hear-l ing Room, 5th floor, East West Towers Building, 4350 East-West i
l Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Each side is allotted a total of one hour for the presentation of its argument.
J/
Tr. 603-06.
That ruling required the production of certain documents.
80033107_-2 1
e.
. 2/
In this connection, it appears that the three petitioners-take essentially the identical position in urging that directed certification be granted and the ruling below reversed.
Like-3/
wise, the two respondents offer essentially the same reasons.
in urging the denial of the petition (or alternatively the affirmance of the ruling below).
Accordingly, so as to avoid unnecessary repetition at argument, counsel on each side are to confer among themselves and to assign to one of their number the responsibility for the full presentation of their common position.
Although other counsel on that side may also be heard, it is our expectation that they will confine themselves to points which, in their judgment, were not sufficiently or satisfactorily covered by lead counsel or on which their views differ.
The petitioners will have the right to open and close the arguaent.
In preparing for argument, the parties should assume that the members of this Board will be fully familiar with not merely the content of their appellate submissions but, as well, those l
)
2/
Texas Utilities Generating Company; Houston Lighting and l
~-
Power Company; Central and South West Corporation, et al.
3/
The Department of Justice and the NRC staff.
No other party to the proceeding has filed a response to the petitions.
The time to do so expired yesterday.
See our March 13, 1980 order.
. portions of the record below which bear upon the controversy.
Further, there will be no necessity to rehearse the standards applicable to the grant or denial of a petition for directed certification, as enunciated in numerous prior decisions of this Board.
Rather, lead counsel for each side should proceed directly to the questions whether those standards are met in this instance and, if so, whether the ultimate relief sought by the petitioners is warranted.
4/
The Secretary to this Board is to be notified by telephone-,
no later than noon on Wednesday, March 26, of the names of the 5/
lead and other counsel who intend to participate in the argument.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD j
). $ >
Barbara A.
Tompkins Secretary to the Appeal Board l
l
_4/
301-492-7664.
l 5/
In our March 13 order (at fn. 4), we held out the possibility
~~
that we would call upon the petitioners to make the disputed documents available for our in camera inspection.
Although not asking for the documents now, we may elect to do so at a later time.
Accordingly, the petitioners should leave in effect whatever arrangements they have made to insure prompt delivery of them to us should we request it.
t
.