ML20138P674

Order Requesting That ASLB Address Issue of Unification of Two Dockets Forthwith & Announce Conclusions at Earliest Opportunity.Served on 851224

ML20138P674
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/23/1985
From:	Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#485-582 OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8512260216
Download: ML20138P674 (3)

Text

-^ ,

STAV O 9 SERVED DE0241985 QAE,IED c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~85 DEC 24 A10 :29 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD yn r 5 r_ ..

Administrative Judges: I E dg gj('j[ '*'

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman December 23, 1985 Dr. W. Reed Johnson

Thomas S. Moore i

)

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) )

)

f ORDER 1 We have just learned of the Docket 2 Licensing Board's December 12, 1985 unpublished memorandum in this operating license proceeding. That memorandum reads in full as follows:

We have received three comments from the parties concerning ways of providing for notice that material in one docket is relevant to the other docket. In light of those filings, it will not be difficult for us to implement an effective notice procedure.

However, the comments of the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission persuade us that serious consideration should be given to unification of the two dockets, which now appear to us to be more interrelated than we first thought. Were the Appeal Board not already involved in that question, we would take it up at this time. Under the circumstances, we will defer

, to the Appeal Board concerning possible

unification and we will postpone consideration of the fair notice question.

8512260216 851223 PDR ADOCK 05000445 Q PDR >

. .w m .-

n , .

~ . , , . . ,

2 In referring to our involvement in the question of docket unification, the Docket 2 Licensing Board undoubtedly had in mind our December 4, 1985 unpublished order in which we scheduled oral argument for January 3, 1986, on the applicants' Petition for Directed Certification of Licensing Board's Order of October 31, 1985. Although the December 4 order indicated that the oral argument would encompass questions relating to whether all further proceedings on the intervenor's Contention 5 should be conducted by a single Licensing Board, it was not our intention to foreclose either of the current Licensing Boards from giving " serious consideration * *

• to unification of the two dockets" if the Board deemed such cons!.deration to be warranted.1 Inasmuch as the Docket 2 Licensing Board has now expressly stated that it deems consideration of docket unification to be appropriate, we believe that the interests of all concerned will be served if that Board addresses the matter forthwith and announces its conclusion at the very earliest opportunity.

1 As a general proposition, the filing of a directed certification petition has no effect upon the Licensing Board's jurisdiction over a proceeding and the authority of that Board to enter such orders as it considers justified.

--c e ;;

O i

3 i

I i

It is so ORDERED.

l FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l

l 1 -_ 2g - g ] h. % 'k- J j Barbara A. Tompkins' i Secretary to the Appeal Board l

Dr. Johnson did not participate in this order.

1 mp w

0

++v ,