ML20140D163
| ML20140D163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1984 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| CON-#484-660 OL, NUDOCS 8412180336 | |
| Download: ML20140D163 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
GGG
[
]A UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gyy gra k,
y
- l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g bp.O
/
'84 EC 17 P12:42 December 12, 1984 'fFgfjf,$Ypf[
SRANCH Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, TX 75224 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, thiftT1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-44(p-d C
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed are Tr. pp. 20,454-455 for the November 26, 1984 hearings wherein is set out the Board's further ruling on the multiple filings issue.
Sincerely, M Q/
/Q.
Stuart A. T'r by Assistant Chief H aring Counsel
Enclosure:
As stated
/
w/o;/ encl.: Service List cc I
1 8412180336 841212 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR
2b89.O
['
20454
/
/ BRT-l 1
P_ R O C E E D I N_ G 5,
'2 JUDGE BLOCH:
The hearing will please come to 3
order.
4 First, Mr. Gallo's motion to defer the start of the 5
opening of testimony on December 3, until 1:00 p.m.
for 6
personal reasons, is granted.
We will decide later in the 7
week -- we will decide later in the date with other 8
matters related to this part of the case.
9 on the other side of the case, there was a motion to 10 reconsider our decision on multiple filings, and in 11 response to that motion, we will take some action to 12 clarify and extend the decision we previously made.
The 13 principal action we are taking.is that we will require a 14 showing, consistent with the multiple filings decision, 15 for third round filings as well'as fourth round, so that 16 when Applicants respond to CASE responses, they will have 17 to do the same thing to justify new information that they 18 include in their motions, that we had imposed upon CASE.
19 In addition, we will state that it was never our 20 intention in allowing responses by Applicants to CASE 21 answers to permit wholesale filing of new information that 22 should have been included in the first instance, so we 23 will, in each case, be examining answers that may have 24 been made by AppAicants to see whether there was l
25 information lacking the first time around that should have
(
l l-
.h a a a ERP Am Q[
y mwww-w- - -
2[189. 0l 20455 3
. ERT f
1-been there, rather than having been included in a response.
2 MR. WATKINS:
Mr. Chairman, will there be a 3
written order to that effect?
~
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
No.
I think given the specificity 5
of the multiple filings motion that there's no need to s
6 explain further why we are extending it to third round 7
decisions.
It just fits'.
8 We had earlier allowed, wholesale, applicants would be 9
allowed to respond.without application.
We do notice ^an 10 improvement in the filings of the CASE filings and believe 11 that the wholesale permit to respond to CASE answers 12 should no longer have special applicability and of course 13 that means that there is also no wholes, ale right to i
14 respond to Staff answers, either.
The same multiple 15 filings considerations would respond to third party 16 filings with respect to Staff answers.
17 Mr. Watkins, your witness.
18 MR. WATKINS:
We call George W.
Chaney.
19 Whereupon, 20 GEORGE W.
CEANEY 21 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 22 was examined and testified as follows:
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Chaney, I would like to advise 24 you this is a hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory 25 Commission which is of course a branch of the United i
-. -,., _ -,