ML19338G639

Response Stating No Objection to Citizens Association for Sound Energy 801014 Motion for Addl Time to Suppl Response Re Applicants' 800918 Motion to Compel.Does Not Oppose Availability of NRC 1978-80 Issuances.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19338G639
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/28/1980
From:	Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8010310436
Download: ML19338G639 (6)

Text

October 28, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 s\ .41 1 I m#

\

,b ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /7

( 'N T O:'. _. Y[.\

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDk yh rd cc' 2 i sic > EH In the Matter of )

h ~, " I' 9 7 C 'T . b

\,% .. . f. .

• 3 .*s /

) ~L , j' ,

TEX 3c UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-44& AsY OMPANI, et al. ) 50-446 Q g ,/

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License) 4 APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTIONS FOR (1) EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUPPLEMENT ITS RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND (2) PROVIDING NRC ISSUANCES k' Pursuant to 10 CFR {2.730(c), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (" Applicants") hereby submit Applicants' answer to the motions of Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE")

filed October 14, 1980 for (1) an extension of time to supple-ment its response to Applicants' September 18, 1980 motion to compel and (2) the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board")

in the captioned proceeding to make copies of NRC issuances available to CASE. As set fcrth below, Applicants do not object to either of CASE's motions.

I. Backcround on September 18, 1980, Applicants filed a motion to compel CASE to respond to Applicants' August 1, 1980 first set of interrogatories to CASE. On October 2, 1980, CASE filed its response to that motion. CASE now seeks to supplement its

/ O

5; "[I noacggoc % (f

e October 2 response once it has obtained copies of the NRC decisions cited in Applicants' motion to compel. CASE indi-cates that it sought to locate those decisions as soon as CASE received Applicants' motion to compel. CASE states that it was unable to locate them within a " reasonable distance" and that it requested copies from the NRC Public Document Rocm (apparently in Washington, D.C.) on October 9. CASE then submitted the subject motions on October 14 which request (1) an extension of time for CASE to supplement its response to Applicants' motion to compel (until 10 days after CASE has received the NRC issu-ances it seeks) and (2) that the Board have copies of NRC issuances from 1978 to 1980 made available at the University of Texas at Arlington Library mini-public documents room.

II. Applicants' Answer to CASE's Motions A. Applicants Do Not Object to CASE's Motion for Extension of Time Answers to motions in NRC licensing preceedings are to be filed within 10 days of the date of service of the motion (plus five days if service is by mail), 10 CFR $$2.710 and 2.730(c), unless for good cause shewn the time is extended, 10 CFR $2.711(a). A motion for an extension of time should be made prior to the expiration of the time which is sought to be extended. See Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek i

j

Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122, 125 (1977).

Against this background, it is clear that CASE's motion for an extension of time to supplement its answer to Applicants' motion -to compel is untimely. See Wolf Creek, suEra, 6 NRC at 125. Although CASE timely filed its answer on October 2, no mention was made then of CASE's intent to supplement the answer even though CACC had evidently already decided to do so and had begun its search for the NRC decisions. CAS should have requested the extension of time in its October 2 answer.*/

Efficient conduct of this proceeding depends on careful compli-ance with the NRC Rules of Practice, including time limitations, which CASE has not done in this instance.

Despite CASE's failure to comply with the NRC Rules of Practice, Applicants do not object to CASE's motion for an extension of time to supplement its answer to Applicants' motion to compel. However, Applicants premise their position on the expectation that CASE will file its supplement in the very

-*/ Indeed, the inexcusability of CASE's tardiness in this respect is emphasized by the fact that CASE was admitted as a party more than a year ago and has waited until this 1

, time to request access to NRC decisions. At least one l l Intervenor ( ACORN) evidently has had access to NRC deci-sions for some time. See ACORN's April 10, 1980 Statement of Position on Contentions.

i

near future, given that it ordered the NEC decisions on October 9, 1980.

B. Applicants Do Not Object to CASE's Motion for Providing Access to NRC Issuances __

Applicants believe that CASE should be afforded access to NRC decisions. However, Applicants do not express any opinion as to whether the Board should make such arrangements or whether it would be more appropriate that the Staff make the arrangements.

Also, Applicants do not express any opinion as to the specific location at which the material should be made available.'

II. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Applicants do not object to CASE's motions for an extension of time to file a supplement to its response to Applicants' motion to compel and for provisions to be made to afford CASE access to NRC decisions.

Respect: lY su itted, Nichola [S.peynolds

{

• William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Texas Utilities i

October 20, 1980 1

I l

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to CASE's Motions for (1) Extension of Time to Supplement ,

its Response to Applicants' Motion to Compel and (2) Providing NRC Issuances", in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 28th day of October, 1980:

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel LicensL-?1 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Conne :.icut Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq.

Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection Commission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Chairman, Atomic Safety and Austin, Texas 78711 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Niclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010

L Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 9 l W ' h William A. Horin cc: Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

l l

l l

l 1

_ _ _ - _.