ML19289F384

Applicants' Supplemental Memo Re 790417 Appeal of 790403 Prehearing Conference Order.Since Austin Citizens for Economical Energy Have Not Filed Info Per order,790417 Appeal Should Be Treated as Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19289F384
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/27/1979
From:	Newman J, Reis H, Thrash C BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906070304
Download: ML19289F384 (3)

Text

's

• e t . h 1 ; .-

.?,s r . 7 NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM y7' g?.- -

.a .,

av./.! !< }y:1,

, .;,

. t.

s .' ')

2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA sN

.~",

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION **.,f BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498-OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499-OL

)

(South Texas Project, )

Units 1 & 2) )

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMCRANDUM On April 17, 1979, applicants herein, Houston Lighting

& Power Ccapany, et al., filed a notice of appeal and sup-porting brief relating to the "Prehearing Conference Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions," issued by the Licensing Board in this proceeding, dated April 3, 1979, and served April 4, 1979. Applicants thereby appealed from, among other things, the grant by the Licensing Board of the peti-tion to intervene of an organization called Austin Citizens for Economical Energy ( ACEE) :

if, uithin ten days of the service of this order, that organization files additional information as later des-cribed. (p. 6; see also pp. 46, 67-68)

ACEE's petition to intervene was " conditionally denied" pending the filing of such information. (p. 6) 79 0 6 0 7 0 3cx{ 2231 113

's The ten-day period expired on the same day as did the tL=e for the applicants to file the notice of appeal and supporting brief; and at the time they filed those pleadings, applicants did not know whether ACEE would file the additional information. Because of this and in order to address the proceeding below "as a coherent whole, rather than piece-meal . . ., " those pleadings assumed that ACEE would make a timely filing of the additional information. In effect, applicants thereby appealed the conditional grant of inter-vention to ACEE. However the notice of appeal stated that applicants would inform the Appeal Board whether or not the information was subsequently filed.

The ten-day period, together with an additional five-day period for service by mail, expired on April 19, 1979.

Applicants have not been served with the information referred to and, in addition, understand the NRC Staff has been informally advised that ACEE has decided not to file that information. Consequently applicants assume that the conditional denial of ACEE's petition to intervene has ripened into a full denial and that the Appeal Board may treat as moot applicants' appeal from the conditional grant of ACEE's petition to intervene.

2231 ll4

a Respectfully submitted,

, (gd /L fiicO'"

Jack R. Newman

, Harold F. Reis

. Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, tal Washington, DC 20036 OF COUNSEL: Melbert D. Schwarz Charles G. Thrash, Jr.

LOWENSTEIN, NEW:1AN 3000 One Shell Plaza REIS, AXELRAD L TOLL Houston, Texas 77002 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY BAKER AND BOTTS Project Manager of tha South Texas 3000 One Shell Plaza Project, acting herein on behalf Houston, Texas 77002 of itself and the other Applicants, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Dated: April 27, 1979 2231 115