ML20137S403

Order Requesting Each Party to Provide Name of Individual Presenting Oral Argument on 860103 in Bethesda,Md by 851226. Served on 851205

ML20137S403
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/04/1985
From:	Shoemaker C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#485-392 OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8512060235
Download: ML20137S403 (2)

Text

- -

ger -

5 7

/

af\) '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UJ($c[gf Ut ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges: C -5 A10:13 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 4 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Dh55mberg,j1985 Thomas S. Moore

ChlpjhCH4j)fy

, SERVED DEC 51995 In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 OL & OL-2 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 OL & OL-2

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

ORDER Oral argument on the applicants' Petition for Directed Certification of Licensing Board's Order of October 31, 1985, will be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, January 3, 1986, in the NRC Public Hearing Room, Fifth Floor, East-West Towers Building, 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

Each side will be allotted one hour for the presentation of its argument. For this purpose, the applicants and the NRC staff constitute one side and will be heard first. If they so desire, those parties may reserve a reasonable portion of their time for rebuttal to the oral argument presented on behalf of the intervenor Citizens Association for Sound Energy.

In addition to the issues explicitly presented by the applicants' petition for directed certification, we will 8512060235 051204 gDR ADOCK 05000gg5

~Bso l

.m . % , - _-- m -

z.

2 e expect the parties to address at oral argument the following questions:

1. Do we have the authority under the Commission's Rules of Practice to direct certification on our own initiative of the question whether the intervenor's Contention 5 was susceptible of division for disposition by two Licensing Boards?

2. If so, should we direct that all further proceedings on that contention be conducted by a single Licensing Board?

3. Assuming that we were to direct that all further proceedings on Contention 5 be conducted by a single Licensing Board, what additional instructions, if any, should we give to that Board at this juncture?

Each party should provide the Secretary to this Board, by letter mailed no later than Thursday, December 26, 1985, with the 'name of the individual who will' present oral argument on its behalf.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD h.

C.

_ b-^ ab

@ n Shoemaker Secrdtary to the Appeal Board

)

l

,-w