ML20099L143
| ML20099L143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1985 |
| From: | Philips M BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-162 OL, NUDOCS 8503200490 | |
| Download: ML20099L143 (5) | |
Text
&
(
.s-85 Mar 2Q 1%?,0@985 o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gg;gg y ggcptur.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOuc8ETiNG & SEPVK, BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445andgp[
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2
)
Operating Licenses)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S MOTION TO STAY RULING REGARDING CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM (CONCERNING WELDING ISSUES)
On December 18, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") issued Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues), LBP-84-54, 20 NRC
(" Welding Decision") in the captioned proceeding.
On January 7, 1985, Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE") filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues)
(" CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of the Welding Decision")l.
Texas Utilities Electric Company, et. al.
(" Applicants") and the NRC Staff filed responses on January 22 and February 7,
- 1985, respectively.
During recent telephone communications with all parties, the Licensing Board Chairman stated his intention t.'
proceed with ruling on the issues associated with CASE's Mot:
for Reconsideration af the Welding Decision.
On March 7, 14-CASE filed the i ntant n: tion seeking reconside ration of -the 8503200490 8
{DR ADOCK 05000 *5 O
Licensing Board Chairman's stated intent to proceed to decision on CASE's previous notion for reconsideration.
As set forth below, Applicants oppose the instant motion.
CASE's instant motion is simply a reaffirmation of one of its motions set forth in its Motion for Reconsideration of the Welding Decision, viz., because of Applicants alleged misrepresentation of the record coupled with the alleged lack of time CASE has had to present its case regarding the welding issues, the Board should re frain from ruling on the issues until CASE has had an opportunity to supplement its Motion for Reconsideration of the Welding Decision.
CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of the Welding Decision at 62-64.
CASE's motion is basically a rehash of its original motion for reconsideration.
CASE provides no substantive support for its new motion thEt supplements or modifies its original motion.
Appplicants hereby respond to CASE's motion by incorpo' rating by reference our January 22, 1985 response to CASE's previous motion, at pp. 20-22. Applicants would also note that CASE's stated intent to supplement its motion for reconsideration with new arguments or positions is contrary to Commission direction.
- See, e.g., Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Virgil C.
1 Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-80-26, 14 NRC 787, 790 (1981), wherein the Commission stated that a motion for" reconsideration is proper only if it is confined to "an
)
elaboration upon, or refinement of arguments previously
. 1 advanced."
See also Tennessee Valley Authority (Huntsville Nuclear Power Plant, Units lA, 2A, 18 and 28, ALAB-418, 6 NRC 1, 2 (1977).
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, Applicants maintain that the Board should deny CASE's instant motion an1 proceed to decision on CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of the Welding Decision.
1 P'
Nictoihs S /Reyholds Malcolm H. Philips, Jr.
BISHOP, LIEBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants March 19, 1985 4
l O
O I
- . cl 15 yF: 20 A9:31 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y c;gx!Ar-
',ccI,,[,TiNi5 SEEV'CI i-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOgigNCH In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
50-446 COMPANY, et al.
)
~~'~~
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Reply to CASE's Motion to Stay Ruling Regarding CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board's Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 19th day of March, 1985.
Peter B.
Bloch, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. William L. Clements Dr. ' Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A.
McCollom Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
Dean, Division of Engineering Office of the Executive Architecture'and Technology Legal Director Oklahoma State University U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert D.
Martin Regional Administritor, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Region IV Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 7W)l l
' t *Renea Hicks, Esq.
Mrs. Juanita Ellis Assistant Attorney General President, CASE Environmental Protection 1426 South Polk Street Division Dallas, Texas 75224 P.O.
Box 12548 Capitol Station Elizabeth B. Johnson, Esq.
Austin, Texas 73711 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Post Office Box X Lanny A.
Sinkin Building 3500 3022 Porter Street, N.W.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 304 i
Washinghon D.C.
20008 Maicolm H / Phflips, Jr.
i
.1 cc:
John W.
Beck Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
i t'
u o
(
5 O
e
..,