ML19339B897

Responds to Util 801105 Motion for Clarification of ASLB 801024 Order & Ltr to Aslb.Disagrees W/Util Understanding of Order & Intends to Provide Witness Summaries Indicated

ML19339B897
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/06/1980
From:	Poirier M SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID
To:	Glaser M, Mark Miller, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8011100396
Download: ML19339B897 (2)

Text

-

l l

law CPRIC*A 3*CMGE SeEGEL. eC SPIIGEL d5 MCDIARMID RCN M. LANoSMAN

'O Z"Y C * *'# ""' SONN6E S. SulR 2600 VIRGINIA AVENUE. N.W* RCSERT MARLEY SEAR CANIRA J. STMESEL WCCRT A. JASLON WASHINGTON Q.C. 20037 THOMAS C. TRAUGER JAMES M. MCRwcQO JOHN MICHA EL ACRAGNA AuN J. RCTH TELEPMONE (202) 333-A500 CYNTMBA S. SCGORAD pCANCES E. FRANCIS GARY J. NEWELL MARC M. PCIRIER 3 ANtEL 1. Q AVICSCN MARTJ, A. MAMil.38 D+7M AS N. MCMUGM. JR.

ECTOR st MATT JOSEPM L. V AN EATON 31.v10 m. STRAuS STEPMEN C. NICMCLS November 6, 1980

' 89 >,.

one.au~esu #

LLOYO E. CIETRICM

<t ' ,

ns.',-

6&Y  :.

O

$g g,i settttad:..- .3 I/ K '""

es-Marshall E. Miller, Esquire ,, ..

Michael L. Glaser, Esquire "

o3 Q Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire  ::.2 Atomic Safety and Licens.ng Board @ ., -,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a _.

Washing ton , D.C. 20555 h i; g n Re: Houston Lichting & Power Co., e t al . ,

( South Texas Proj ect, Units 1 & 2),

NRC Docke t No s . 50-4 98 A , 50-499A; Texas Utilities Generating Co., ej al.,

(Comanene Peak Steam Ilectric Station, Units 1& 2),

NRC Docke t No s . 50-44 5 A , 50-446A Gentlemen: .

v The Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas, has received and hereby responds to the

" Motion of Houston Lighting & Power Company for Clarification of the Board's Crder of Cetober 24, 1980" filed November 5, 1980 and the accompanying letter dated November 5, 1980 addressed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

Brownsville does not share Houston's understanding of the Board's Crder. At the October 24, 1980 Prehearing Conference the Board requested Brownsville (and any other party contesting the adequacy of the proposed settlement conditions) to file comments setting out the issues and the ,

respects in which the proposed license conditions are _

inadequate. (Tr. 1238, 1251-52, 1258). Other parties will have an opportunity to respond with their own comments.

(Tr. 1240).

DSo$

5

/. o 8011100 gg g

--- ~. - -- - - . _ _ . . -. -

During that period all procedural dates and requirements are to be suspended. (Tr. 1264). In other '

words, the several pending procedural disputes are suspended while the Board provided an opportunity for all the parties to present ta it a thorough discussion of the adequacy of the proposed condicirac. To require Brownsville to prepare and submit its witness summaries at the same time is unnecessary and contrary to the purpose of the Crder.

Houston has shown no legitimate reason for requiring this information by Monday, as it requests.

Brownsville's ccmments and Houston's as well represent a framing of issues. The specification of evidence Houston seeks is necessary only in preparation for hearing -- not at this stage where issues relating to the scope of the contro-versy are being framed and where the very nature of the

hearing that ,may result is not at all clear.

Brownsville fully intends to provide Houston and all parties with witness summaries as indicated in its ini-tial trial brief, and has completed the majority of these summacies, if we are to assume that there will be no settlement. Indeed, however, Houston has in its possession already most of the evidence upon which Brownsville has stated it will rely in such an event. We believe the - Board has indicated first priority should be given to the comments

] requested by the Board. Within these limits we shall l ccmplete all witness su=maries as soon as possible, so that they may be furnished as soon as the Board determines the scope of the proceeding which will ensue.

The Board indicated that the date on which Brownsville comments are due is Monday, November 10, not November 7 as Houston apparently understood. (Tr. 1240; Motion at 2). NRC Staf f counsel also understood both the initial and reply dates as Mondays. (Tr. 1261).

Brownsville thus expects to submit its comments on the license ccnditions to the Board on November 10, 1980. We do not understand any other material presently to be due.

Resp ctfully submitted, 4A f- -

Marc R. Poir%er i Attorney for the Public Utilities ioard of the City of Brownsville, Texas cc: All Parties MRP:vha

- - . - - - .- .