ML18127A256
| ML18127A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1975 |
| From: | Reis H Florida Power & Light Co, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18127A256 (8) | |
Text
CO I
I oocrmo.
VSNRO Jggf g P7Q P a) vrtr
+VI+~
UNXTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMXC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
In the Matter of -)
)'
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-389
)
St. Lucie Plant, Unit, No. 2
)
OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO BRIEF EXCEPTIONS In a Motion dated June 12, 1975, postmarked June 13, 1975, and received by Applicants'ounsel on June 16, 1975, Intervenors request an indeterminate extension of time to brief their exceptions.
1/
. Applicant hereby'pposes the request on the merits and. because it is untimely.
The brief supporti'ng the numerous exceptions filed by the 2/
Xntervenors was originally due on May 19, 1975. However, in 1/ The Motion recites that Applicants'ounsel stated that they were
'unable to agree to any extension of time for briefing exceptions."
On June 12, 1975, Applicants'ounsel were asked orally to agree to a two-week extension beyond June 13. No lesser extension (e.g.,
a few days to complete a brief already commenced) was suggested to Applicants'ounsel, and their failure to assent related only to the two-week extension suggested to them.
2/ The exceptions were filed on May 2, 1975. Accordingly, the brief would ordinarily have been due 15 days thereafter, May 17.
10 CFR 52.762(a). However, that day was a Saturday. Accordingly, the brief was due on Monday, May 19. 10 CFR 52.710.
ALAB-274, pp. 4-5 (May 28, 1975), an 'extension until June 13, 1975 was granted. Accordingly, Intervenors have already received a 25-day extension.
The sole basis for the request for the additional extension f
is that Intervenors'ounsel, already heavily burdened, is preparing for a Florida State Site Certification proceeding scheduled to commence on June 16, 1975, and he is also required to participate 3/
in a related suit in the United States District Court. However, the Appeal Board-has stated "counsel who participate in AEC [now NRC] proceedings have an obligation not to over-extend their commitments so as to .frustrate the objective of bringing licensing 4/
proceedings to a conclusion within a reasonable time frame.
Consumers Power Com anv (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, RAI-73-5, 331, 353 (May 23, 1973). It.'is only if this obligation is enforced that other participants'n such proceedings will be relieved of unreasonable delay and expense; and it is only where this obligation is met that. the requirements of administrative efficiency and expedition will be accommodated.
~
.3/ The status of that suit and the burden upon Intervenors'ounsel is not set forth.
it has or will impose 4/ The Motion states that the Xntervenors "cannot. afford to hire additional legal assistance." Not a single iota of evidence con-cerning the financial status of any of the Intervenors has been offered, and for all that appears, the failure to hire additional counsel merely represents a desire to avoid bearing "costs to the extent of Intervenors'apabilities." Consumers Power Compan (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLX-74-26, HAX-74-7, 1, 2 (July 10, 1974).
In addition to lacking merit, the Motion is out of time.
The Appeal Board has advised. counsel that:
"Equally important, we do not approve of the practice of submitting motions for extensions of time by mail on the date the substantive document is due for filing.
To be sure, the Commission's rules provide that docu-ments are deemed filed when mailed. 10 CFR 2.701(c).
But when the document being filed is a motion for an extension of time, rather than the substantive document it itself, we think appropriate that the motion transmitted in sufficient time to be in our hands no be later than the day before the substantive document is due. We have previously expressed our expectation that this practice would generally be followed, and
.the Appendix to a recently-revised section of the rules specifically requires that connection with appeals from initial it be followed in we will view the failure to follow this decisions.'ereafter, practice in connection with ~an motion for an exten-sion of time as providing a sufficient basis, in and of itself, for denying the motion. Any motion which is not transmitted, in compliance with the time frame set. out. above mu t cont"in, in addition to the reasons relied upon to justify the extension, a showing of good cause for the failure to transmit the motion in timely fashion." (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original)
Louisiana Power & Li ht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, ALAB-117, RAI-73-4, 261-262 (April 20, 1973). And 10 CFR, Part 2, Appendix A, <[IX(d)(3) provides in pertinent part:
"There must be strict compliance with the time limits prescribed for the filing of exceptions or briefs by the rules of practice or by an order of the Appeal Board which extends or shortens those limits in the particular case. Absent a showing of extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances, motions for exten-sions of time must be received by the Appeal Board at least 1 day prior to the date upon'which the document, in question is then due for filing. In no circumstances will a document be accepted by the Appeal Board on an untimely basis unless it. is accompanied by a motion for leave to file of time, which similarly must'be founded upon it out extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances. h
%LAB-274 cited (p'; 4, no. 4) .both the Naterford decision and para. IX(d)(3). It also expressly informed the Intervenors of their obligation to "file the required brief by that date
[June 13, 1975) unless they have previously submitted and we have granted 'a motion for further extension of their briefing time.
(footnote omitted) .
This admonition has simply been ignored. Obviously the Board would be most unlikely to receive and be in a position to grant a motion on June 13 if it was not. mailed until June 12, particularly under circumstances where it might not even be forwarded from the local post office until June 13. Moreover, no good cause for the delay in making the request let alone "extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances" -- is even suggested in the Motion. The Intervenors have long known of the existence of the proceedings now claimed to occupy their counsels'ime. The District Court litigation was commenced on May 15, 1975. The Florida Site Certification hearing has been scheduled to commence 5/
on June 16 since at least May 7.
5/ See pleadings in Martin County Conservation Alliance v. 'Florida Power 6 Liqht Compan , S.D. Fla. Miami Divisa.on) Case No. 75-821-CIV-CZ see also schedule contained in "Pre-Hearing Conference Order," dated Florida Division of Adminxstrata.ve Hearings, Case No.75-006.
The effect of the delay in requesting the extension is to place the Board in the position of either enforcing its rules--
rules which were carefully called to Xntervenors'ttention -- or to appear to be unduly severe with professedly disadvantaged parties. This Board should not permit itself to be so manipulated.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, LOWENSTEXN I NEWMANg REX S Ec AXELROD Co-Counsel for Applicant June 17, 1975 By ~i>! ~~ P W/(A~~
Harold F. Reis
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORX COMMISSION Xn the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANX } DOCKET NO. 50-389
}.
.(St. Lucre Nuclear Power Plant, }
Unit 2}'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I here5y certify that copies of the foregoing, "Opposition to Request for Further Extension of Time to Brief 'Exceptions," dated June 17, 1975, haye been served on the persons listed on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 17th day of June, 1975.
Harold F. Reis Co-Counsel for Applicant Lowenstein, Newman, Reis
& Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
.UNITED STATES OF AMERXCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) .
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) DOCKET NO. 50-389
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 2) )
SERVICE LIST Mr. C.R. Stephens Supervisor, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 0
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard S. Salzman,'sq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Edward Luton, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and'icensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pan Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C. 20555 4
Michael Glaser, Esq.
Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety and.Licensing Board 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Marvin M. Mann Technical Advisor Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor'of Nuclear Engineering University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F. Hooper Chairman, Resource Ecology Program School of: Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Mr. Angelo Giambusso Deputy Director for Reactor Projects Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-Perry. B. Seiffert, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555 Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 N.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
Co-Counsel for Applicant Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Local Public Document Room Xndian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450