ML20032B938
| ML20032B938 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111060532 | |
| Download: ML20032B938 (3) | |
Text
c.?
/
00CKETED USNRC m
'8 Y -4 P2:51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d r $[L d I ) i PPtf^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cFFICE OF SECRETAR-
[i.0MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00CKETING & SERVICE l?- HOVJ 61981=
9 BRANca 7 'B 3
O e T " f # efore Administrative Judges:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman NOVf 7b Dr. James C. Lamb
- rj g
y Mr. Ernest E. Hill
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
November 3,1981
)
ORDER (Granting Applicants' Motion For Leave To Reply To Written Responses Of CEU and CCANP)
By our Order dated October 9,1981, we granted permission to CEV and CCANP to file written responses to the Applicents' and NRC Staff's responses to the September 10, 1981 CEU motion to add contentions.
CEV had filed such a writteil response on October 6,1981.
Our October 9,1981 Order accepted that response and gave CCANP until October 26, 1981 to file its own response.
CCANP, in fact, filed its response on October 23, 1981.
On October 20, 1981, the Applicants moved for leave to reply to the written responses of CEU and CCANP. The motion noted that the CEV response had raised new arguments, not made in its original motion and not addressed by the Applicants' earlier response, and that a further response from Q $
K 05hhhh8 PDR
e l
. Applicants on these natters would assist the Board in appropriately resolving the issues raised by the CEV motion. On October 28,1981, CEV filed an answer to the Applicants' motion which offered no objection to a further response by Applicants but which sought an opportunity for a further filing should the Applicants raise new arguments in the course of respcoding to the intervenors' positions.
The NRC Staff and CCANP have advised the Board by telephone that they do not intend to file responses to the Applicants' motion, although CCANP stated that it concurred with CEU's answer.
As suggested i.n our October 9 Order, we afforded CEU and CCANP permissi5n to respond to the Applicants' and NRC Staff's responses in order to assure that the intervenors had an adequate opportunity to address the matters raised by the Applicants and Staff.
For comparable reasons, the Board believes it would be useful for us to have the Applicants' response to l
CEU's and CCANP's responses prior to ruling on the admissibility of the new contentions.
We also will permit the Staff to file a similar response if it elects to do so.
Because it is necessary to bring the pleadings concerning the proposed new contentions to a close, we expect the Applicants (and the Staff if it files a response) to' limit their responses to matters previously raised by CEU or CCANP.
We are therefore not at this time providing any further opportunity for CEU or CCANP to respond to the Applicants' (or Staff's) filings.
We note that we still expect CEU and CCANP to advise us by November 23, 1981, of the viability of their proposed contentions in light of the changed status of Biown & Root vis-a-vis the South Texas Project.
.l
=
. A:cordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is this 3rd day of November, 1981 ORDERED ihat the Applicants' motion to file a reply to the responses of CEU and CCANP concerning CEU's motion to add new contentions is hereby granted.
The Applicants' response shall be filed by Friday, November 13, 1981.
If the Staff wishes to respond to the responses of CEU and CCANP, it may also do so by November 13.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'~ fw
't!?
re d
Charles Bechhoefer, Chapman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O
9