ML19344D533
| ML19344D533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1980 |
| From: | Bouknight J, Burchette W, Chanania F HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEX-LA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE OF TEXAS, INC. (FORMERLY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344D534 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004240061 | |
| Download: ML19344D533 (3) | |
Text
__
7828 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD
(
i In the Matter of:
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A et al.,
)
50-499A i
)
~~
(South Texas Project, Units 1
)
l and 2)
)?
l
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A i
et al.,
)
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steak Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
I MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DECISION l
There is pending before this Licensing Board a request F
of all but two of the parties in this proceeding to extend pro-cedural dates for 30 days.
That motion was transmitted under cover of a letter dated April 2, 1980 which requested immediate attention in view of the Mminence of procedural deadlines for i
those parties who are the proponents of relief.
It is our understanding that the Board has rejected l
attempts by counsel for the NRC Staff to initiate a conference
- all on either Friday, April 4, 1980 or Monday, April 7, 1980 and that the Board instead intends to adhere to its schedule l
for a prehearing conference on Friday, April 11, 1980 prior to ruling.
This motion, then, is in the nature of a request for reconsideration and for a prompt ruling (on April 8) on the motion for extension of time.
A conference call can be arranged if desired.
The basic reasons for this request combine
~
8004240 O 6 l l
\\
the need for time to discuss settlement during this critical period and considerations of fundamental fairness.
Counsel for necessary parties to meaningful settlement discussions simply cannot do two things at once:
meet the requirement to exchange exhibits and file trial briefs on the i
~
one hand and engage in meaningful settlement discussions on the other hand.
Established NRC policy recognizes that, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, scheduling of antitrust hearings should take into account the time required for settlement I
negotiations. See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 i
and 2), ALAB-468, 7 NRC 465, 469 (1978).
This policy is 2f especially compelling when no party demonstrates prejudice.
Indeed the only party that could be prejudiced by extending these l
L/
procedural dates is TUGCO and TUGCO was one of the movants.
The same considerations which warrant the extension of time being granted also warrant prompt action on the request for extension.
Only Brownsville has requested oral argument and i
lf In addition, the sche nling of hearings should give due a
regard to the convenience of parties and their counsel as well as to the public interest.
1 2/
It seems doubtful that prejudice is shown by a desire to maintain pressure on other parties.
3/
Because of estimated dates of construction completion,
~
TUGCO has heretofore opposed substantial extensions, but has in this instance joined in the request because there i
appears to be sufficient grounds for reducing or elkninating i
l unnecessary litigation through partial or full settlement to warrant the extension.
onlyithasfiledanyoppositiontothemotion.y All parties j
were apprised of the motion prior to its filing.
In the circum-s'ances, it is neither fair nor in the public interest to keep those with imminent procedural deadlines from participating in settlement talks and working " full out" on trial briefs through
{
Friday, April 11, 1980.
Accordingly, the movants request the Board to reconsider and hold a conference call on April 8, 1980 and rule during the call.
Additional argument and represen-j tations on behalf of TUGCO and Tex-La Electric Cooperative'of l
L Texas, Inc. are appended hereto." ~
j Respectfully submitted, i
Acid ( D.9AtmwA7pc)
[
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff
)
Md M S.Whl h) u L
Central & Southwest Corporation
(
J,6. &Qe J r.
@C Houston Lighting & Power Company l
(A)<4 k w v FI S'tcLeW (f)
Tex-La Electric Cooperative of T
as, Inc.
l t
b Texas' Utilities Generating Company i
\\j i
Date,:
April 7,1980 t
.4/
The Department has stated that it takes no position on the extension.
l f
., _. - -