ML18085A409
| ML18085A409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1980 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M CONNER, MOORE & CORBER, Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300071 | |
| Download: ML18085A409 (7) | |
Text
'
l-
'10Cl<ETEr u~**'*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEC - 9 1980
- Office. of the Secretary Do~l!_eting & Service
- > Branch
.~*,;
Before The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal r:J
~~*.. -
,~.
<~;
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et al.
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_-,*--,=:; --*
Q~~~:;~
~~
- "J:.l Docket No.
50-2~2 (Proposed Issuar@e of ro Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF ELEANOR G. AND ALFRED C. COLEMAN, JR.
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME On November 30, 1980, Eleanor G. and Alfred C. Coleman, Jr. (
11 Colemans 11 ), intervenors in the captioned proceeding, moved the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for an extension of time until January 31,.1981 in which to submit their brief in support of exceptions.
Licensees, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al., submit that the Colemans have failed to adequately justify the requested extension of time, and their motion should be denied.
The Colemans raise three points in support of their motion.
The first relates to the withdrawal of their coun-sel, the Public Advocate of New Jersey.
The Colemans were c.>>
Zi:ij
- jc
--1 0 ::z.
aware of the possibility of withdrawal of the Public Advocate 01 I
2 -
_y as early as July l,* 1980.
While it is obvious that there will be some increased effort involved in the Colemans' preparing the brief than if they were represented by coun-sel, the Col~ans have actively participated in this pro-ceeding since 1978 and were present during most or all of the prehearing conference and evidentiary sessions.
The Colemans have failed to explain why they waited until over half the time alloted by the Commission's rules for submis-sion of a brief had expired before requesting the extension of time.
Nor have they alluded to any specific difficulty yet encountered in the preparation of the brief.
The second reason advanced is the inability to review transcripts and some unspecified "substantive evidence which has come to [their] attention in the Salem Local Public Document Room."
It is unclear to what documents they are ref erring.
Furthermore, it is not as if* the Colemans are starting out on a clean slate.
The Colemans' twelve excep-tions focus on particular alleged errors.
The proposed findi~gs submitted on their behalf have already analyzed.the evidentiary record and developed the points which they presumably wish to pursue on appeal.
The transcript and record citations in their proposed findings should also as-
_y A letter dated November 7, 1980 from the Office of the Public Advocate, to the Colemans, attached to the Colemans' exceptions dated November 11, 1980, notes the existence of a letter dated July 1, 1980 indicating the likelihood of withdrawal of counsel.
\\..
3 -
sist them in the preparation of a brief.* Thus, any need to-review the transcript further will simply not support
_y the requested.seven week delay.
The third alleged reason of "[p]rior commitments at place of employment" is insufficient to support the re-quested delay.
The Colemans have not specified the nature of "prior commitments," whether such commitments involve both Mr. and Mrs. Coleman, and how these commitments justify an a1rnost seven week delay.
In Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uni.t No. 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, T48 (1978), the Appeal Board stated that:
The orderly functioning of the ad-ministrative process scarcely would be furthered were we to allow parties to our proceedings simply to ignore prescribed time limits whenever it suited their convenience to do so.
We therefore must insist that those limits be honored.
This is true even if, as here, the party happens to be represented by a nonlawyer.
[Footnotes omitted.]
While recognizing some relaxation of the rules to acconuno-date the fact that a party may not have the benefit of counsel, the Appeal.Board in Three Mile Island found no good reason exists why a double standard should obtain insofar as
.21 Obviously, the matters for appellate review must be limited to the record of the proceedings below.
All factual assertions by the Co1emans must therefore be supported by references to the record.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-159, 6 AEC 1001 (1973).
4 -
observance of deadlines is concerned and rejected a late filed pleading as without adequate justification.
As the concurring opinion in that case indicates, the reasons for lateness there were set forth with far more specificity than 21 the reasons for seeking an extension of time here.
Certainly, the Colemans.were aware* that their participation in this proceeding would impose burdens upon them.
They cannot now seek to avoid such obligations and, without good cause, delay the appeal process by their actions While the Colemans have failed to support any grant 4/ '
of additional 'time whatsoever,~ Licensees would not object to a two week extension in which to submit the required brief.
If any extension of time is granted, however, Licen-see would request a period of thirty days from service of that brief to file a consolidated reply to the exceptions of all parties.
Since a.number of the exceptions of the two appellants are related, this would permit the filing of a unified brief by the Licensees.
In Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC slip op. at 38 (September 23, 1980), the Appeal Board recognized that "participation in Commission proceedings can be burdensome and time consuming" but recognized that even a 'public interest' litigant with limited finances" must comply with.* key. provisions of the Rules of Practice.
While there is an apparent confusion in the minds of the Colemans between the role of the Staff and the Of*fice 'of the Executive Legal Director on one hand, and the Appeal Board and the Commission on the other, this cannot have any bearing on the requested extension.
5 -
For the above stated reasons, the Colemans' motion should be denied, or granted subject to the limitations suggested by Licensees.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER
/JJ1<
Mark J.
etterhahn Counsel for the Licensee December 8, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS
.COMPANY, et al.
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
)
)
Docket:.*No. 50-272 1
(Proposed Issuance of
)
Amendment to Facility
)
Operating License
)
No. DPR-70)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of* "Licensee'? Response to the Motion of Eleanor G. and Alfred C. Coleman, Jr.. for an Extension of Time," dated December 8, 1980, in the cap-tioned matter, have been served. upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 8th day of December, 1980:
Christine N.* Kohli,.Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Thomas S. Moore Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bo.ard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gary L." Milhollin, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was~ington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James c. Lamb, III Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, N.C.
27514 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o.c.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Janice Moore, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S *. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~,,
- r
\\..,_
Richard Hluchan, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Department of Law and Public Safety Environmental. Protection Section 36 West State Street Trenton, N.J~ 08625 Richard Fryling, Jr.,. Esq.
Assistant General Solicitor Public* Service Electric.
and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J.
07101 2 -
Mr. Alfred c. Coleman, Jr.
Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman 35 "K" Drive Pennsville,.New Jersey 08070 Carl Valore, Jr., Esq.
Valore, McAllister, Aron
. & Westmoreland Mainland Professional Plaza P
- O
- Box 1 7.S Northfield, N.J.
08225 Office.of the Secretary Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~une D. MacArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Tatnall Building P *. o. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19901