ML20154B578

Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl

ML20154B578
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/28/1986
From:	Gutterman A HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20154B582	List: ML20154B578 ML20154B611
References
CON-#186-273 OL, NUDOCS 8603040339
Download: ML20154B578 (2)

Text

g

27. 3 T

00CMETE0' USNRC A-

.. Vfet

'86 3 38 #0:51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0filCi C E

.t 00CKEh n. <

~

'A BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD.

In the Matter of

)

)

BOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-498'OL gI gL.

)

50-499 OL

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1

)

and 2)

)

Applicants' Motion For Leave To Reply To Portions Of CCANP Partial Response To Show Cause Order The Licensing Board's Order dated February 7, 1986 directed CCANP to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for certain behavior of its attorney.

On February 21, CCANP filed two responses; (1) a letter from one of its attorneys, and (2) a pleading styled CCANP Partial Response to Show Cause Order (CCANP Partial Response). Although the latter document purports to address solely the propriety of the proposed sanction of striking the CCANP January 17, 1986, motion, it also replies to Applicants' Response to "CCANP Motion to Reopen the Phase II Record: IV; For Discovery and to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III."

(Applicants' Response).

CCANP had no authority under the Commission's rules or any order of the Board to reply to Applicants' Response.

Accordingly the CCANP Partial Response is an unauthorized pleading.

Moreover, there are factual premises inherent in the CCANP Partial Response (i.e.., that the Board denied CCANP 8603040339 860228 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G

PDR O

- )

k, adequate opportunity for discovery in Phase II and that CCANP has not had adequate access to documents from the litigation between the Project owners and Brown % Root) which are erroneous and could tend to mislead the Board.

Accordingly, Applicants move the Board for leave to reply to the CCANP Partial Response.

The proposed reply Applicants seek to file is attached. 1/

Respectfully submitted, A:#W Jack R. Newman Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Donald J. Silverman 1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Finis E. Cowan 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Dat.-1:

February 28, 1986 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.

ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING &

1513 L Street, N.W.

POWER COMPANY, Project Manager Washington, D.C.

20136 of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, BAKER & BOTTS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 3000 One Shell Plaza acting by and through the City Houston, TX 77002 Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/

Applicants' proposed reply is restricted to the arguments in the CCANP Partial Response which are in reality a reply to Applicants' Response; it does not comment on CCANP's arguments that sanctions should not be imposed on CCANP or its attorney.