ML20116D283

Motion to File Response to Applicant & Staff Motion for Summary Disposition Out of Time

ML20116D283
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/25/1985
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20116D285	List: ML20116D283 ML20116D294
References
CON-#285-724 OL, NUDOCS 8504290355
Download: ML20116D283 (2)

Text

1.$\ .

DOCXETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'PFC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'85 APR 26 P3:22 In the Matter of (

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND ( Docket Nos. SC i POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-498 h [50-499 dl '-dC (South Texas Project, (

Units 1 and 2) (

CCANP MOTION TO FILE CCANP RESPON5E TO APPLICANTS AND STAFF oggIIQN EQS SUMM88Y DISEQ51IlON QUI QE Il0E On April 5, 1985, the ASLB issued its Memorandum and Order (Telephone Conference Call of April 4, 1985). In said Order, the ASLB ruled that the affidavits filed by Applicants and Staff regarding the performance of H L t< F' , Bechtel, and Ebasco since the close of the Phase I record would be " treated as motions for summary disposition" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.749.

Ihe ASLB recognized in the conference call memorialized in the April 5 Order that CCANP, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.749 would have 20 days, or until April 26 (the day of the call not counting) in which to respond. The Applicants urged a shorter time frame in light of the prehearing conference scheduled for April 30, 1985. CCANP agreed to hand del i ver its response on April 24. Instead, CCANP is hand delivering its response of April 25 and seeks permission of the Board to file this response out of time.

In support of this motion, CCANP directs the Board's attention to the CCANP Motion to Reopen the Phase I Record filed April 16. CCANP decided the Board and parties should receive said motion prior to the April 30 prehearing conference since it raises so many serious issues which might be heard in Phase II.

g) 8504290355 850425

{DR ADOCK 05000498 s 4)

PDR 1 \

e I Said motion is 49 pages in length with e>:hibits running to more than 450 pages.

In addition, CCANP was required to respond to two " motions for summary judgment" at the same time. Neither motion contained a " separate, short, and concise statement of material facts as to which ... there 1 :- no genuine issue to be heard," 10 C.F.R.

Section 2.749(c), because the Board waived this requirement.

April 5 Order at 5. Since such a statement would normally be the legal basis for deciding whether or not to grant or deny such a motion, 10 C.F.R. Section 2.749(a), CCANP was hampered by the absence of such a statement.

Finally, CCANP is also under l eg al deadlines regarding a response to the NRC Staff Response in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Di sposi ti on of CCANP Contention Four and to request revi ew by the Commission of the ASLAB Deci si on which became final on April 10. CCANP had to Oevote some of its very limited resources to these tasks as well.

For the above and foregoing reasons, CCANP moves the Board to accept the attached CCANP filing one day late.

Respectfully submitted, n

J A. ( wf1w Lanny Sinkin Representative for Intervenor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.

3022 Porter St., N.W. #304 Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 966-2141 Dated: Acril 25, 1985 Washington, D.C.

2