ML19260A258
| ML19260A258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1979 |
| From: | Jay Dougherty DOUGHERTY, J.B., Potomac Alliance |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260A259 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911080332 | |
| Download: ML19260A258 (2) | |
Text
_
l s
.r~,
t 1914 wtc vuse DOCUSM N
T je$
_1
- h'h 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
m BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 SP VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO.
)
50-339 SP
)
(North Anna Power Station
)
Proposed Amendment to Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating License NPF-4 g
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT UNTIMELY BRIEF Intervenors move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to accept the accompanying Brief on Exceptions despite the fact that it is 16 days overdue.
The Appeal Board is requested to take the folowing considerations into acccanc:
Since the date on which Intervenors filed their Amended Statement of Exceptions, counsel has been extensively involved in matters both before the Ccmmission and against the Commission in 'ederal courts.
One proceeding in particular, Virginia Sunshine Alliance, et al. v. Hendrie, et al.W has demanded a 1.
D.D.C.,
N1. 79-1989; D.C.
Cir., No. 79-2060.
1297 011 7
7 911070 3.3 L
4 considerable commitment of resources in recent weeks.
Counsel provides his services in these proceedings on a pro bono basis, requiring him to hold full-time employment elsewhere.
This also creates occasional conflicts.
Counsel is not assisted by co-counsel (and generally has tr' i obtaining clerical support).
The delay in submitting the brief has not resulted in pre-judice to the licensee va the NRC Staff.
The licensee amendment sought has been issued and, to the best of Intervenors' information and belief, the licensee has begun the authorized modification of the spent fuel pool at North Anna.
Intervenors are aware of no material change in circumstances during the last 16 days.
1 Intervenors also request that the Appeal Board weigh the importance of the issues presented on this appeal.
One of the central questions raised is the effect on this proceeding of Minnesota v. NRC (D.C. Cir. 1979).
Further, in Intervenors' view the ruling below falls far short of standards previously articu-lated by the Appeal Board concerning clarity of opinion and but-den of proof on summary disposition.
Counsel assures the Appeal Board that the delay in submitting this brief is not indicative of pest or future performance.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: Octocer 26, 1979 James B.
Dougherty 1416 S Street, NW Wawhington, D.C.
20009 (202) 452-9600, X267 (202) 387-7269 1297 012
._