ML20031H531
| ML20031H531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Gutterman A HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8110280069 | |
| Download: ML20031H531 (6) | |
Text
__
J N,
?.-
+
t DOCKETED USNT.3
[
gg, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' 2 OCT 2 21981 >
Officeof theSecretri p;;Mhnh& nice BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e
v' In the Matter of
)
f
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL t-8
[
f (South Texas Project,
)
kk 9'
Units 1 and 2)
)
t Ocre 7 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO C
WRITTEN RESPONSES OF CEU AND CCANP Nh>
'b/
\\'
s By Order dated October 9, 1981, the Board granted to CEd "i
and CCANP permission to file written responses to Applicants' and the NRC Staff's responses to the September 10, 1981, CEU motion LO add contentions.
CEU had filed such a written response on October 6, 1981, (hereinaf ter CEU Rejoinder) prior to receiving permission to do so, and CCANP was given until October 26, 1981, to file such t response.
Applicants move for permission to respond to the CEU Rejoinder and, if one is submitted, to the CCANP filing.
The grcunds for this motion, as further amplified below, are that the CEU Rejoinder raised new arguments, not made in its original motion, and not addressed by Applicants' September 30, 1981, response, anc that a response from Applicants on these matters would assist the Board in appropriately resolving the issues raised by the CEU motion.
pb 5
r
/
/
8110280069 811020 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G
PDR.
o...
Argument The Board's apparen.t purpose in granting CEU and CCANP permission to respond to Applicants' and the NRC Staff's responses to the CEU motion is to assure that prior to ruling on the admission of the proposed contentions, each party has had an opportunity to address the matters at issue.
The CEU Rejoinder contains arguments not made previously by CEU and therefore not addressed by Applicants in their response to the CEU motion.
We believe that a response from Applicants on'these matters would assist the Board in reaching a proper decision.
The following are examples of new arguments in the CEU Rejoinder to which Applicants seek to respond'.
(1)
The CEU Rejoinder attacked the adequacy of the notice provided by HL&P's written S 50.55(e) reports on the American Bridge matter.
Applicants believe that the written reports gave more than adequate notice; and if a response is permitted, Applicants would show that ".EU had ample actual notice of this matter in February 1981.
(2)
The CEU Rejoinder suggests that the proposed conten-tions should be considered timely filed.
Applicants believe that argument is erroneous and our response would show that regardless of the adequacy of the notice the proposed conten-tions must be treated as late and considered in light of the criteria of S 2.714 (a) (1).
~
-3 (3)
In -addressing _ the' five criteria listed in 5.2.714 (a) (1),
the CEU.'.Rejo'inder inaccurately characterizes Applicants'.argu-ments with respect -to the S 50.55 (e) process. ' Applicants'=
response,-if permitted, would show that CEU's characterization is materially _ in error.:
(4). The CEU Rejoinder, in effect, amended the original CEU motion by withdrawing proposed contention 5 and amending:
proposed contentions 1, 2, 3 and 4 to limit them_to the American Bridge circumstances.
Applicants believe the CEU contentions, as amended, remain overly broad and vague; and if a response is permitted, Applicants would show~that the CEU amended' pro-posed contentions are inadmissible and should not be litigated.
in this hearing.
(5)
CEU expresses concern that vendor surveillance aspects of the American Bridge matter will not be adequately resolved by the S 50.55(e) process.
If permitted, Applicants' response would show that these concerns are being resolved by the S 50.55 (e) process, both in response to ;the 5 50.55 (e) matter regarding the American Bridge structural steel and in response to other matters such as the 5 50.55(e) report con-cerning the Vendor Control Program (cf. NRC Staff exhibits'93, l
102, 103, 104 and 105; Tr. 3018-28, 3163-72, 3218-19).
Applicants would be prepared to file a response within a j.
short time of receipt of permission-to do so.
Accordingly, we request that Applicants be granted five days to file a response l
l i
_4-from the time of issuance of a Board Order granting permission O
to respond and that Applicants be permitted to file a response
~
to any CCANP brief within 10 days of filing by CCANP.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Applicants should be granted leave to respond to the CEU Rejcinder and any brief that may be filed by CCANP.
Applicants' responses should be due respectively within five days of Board authorization of a response to the CEU Rejoinder and within 10 days of the filing of a CCANP brief.
Respectfully submitted, Jack R.
Newman Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman 1025 Connecticut Avenue,iTW Washington, D.C.
20036 Finis E.
Cowan Thomas B. Hudson, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Dated: October 20, 1981 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS of the South Texas Project act-ing herein on behalf of itself
& AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Ave., NW and the other Applicants, THE Washington, D.C.
20036 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER Houston, TX 77002 AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B5 FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Motion for Leave to Reply to Written Responses of CEU and CCANP dated October 20, 1981, have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 20th day of October 1981.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chief Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Ernest E.
Hill Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-123 Citizens Concerned About Livermore, CA 94550 Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, TX 78233 Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Lanny Sinkin Utilities, Inc.
2207-D Nueces Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, TX 78705 Brazoria, TX 77422 i
~
Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing' Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Serv, ice Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.44 ~ #^ 7LL i
t 1
....