ML19318A780

Response in Opposition to Intervenors 800611 Motion for Addl Time to File Exceptions to ASLB 800222 Partial Initial Decision Re Alternate Site Issue.Motion Is Based on Springer Affidavit Which Was Opposed by Util.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19318A780
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	06/18/1980
From:	Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8006240143
Download: ML19318A780 (4)

Text

.

~*

e O

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-9 k'

J

~'D k_ er//gI 9193g *

/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

a,;#fty ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR

~ ::a his y.g c q

In the Matter of

)

O

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN 50-488

)

STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station,

)

STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3)

)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS On February 22, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial Decision which addressed the alternate

~

site issue.

On March 4, 1980, the Atomic Safety and L!. censing Appeal Board, by Order, tolled the time for filing exceptions to the Licensing Board's Decision.

On May 30, 1980, the Appeal Board, by Order, determined that there was "no longer any reason to withhold our review of the February 22 partial initial decision" and informed the parties that they had until June 23, 1980 to file exceptions to the Partial Initial Decision.

On June 11, 1980, In-tervenors' filed a Motion to extend the time within which to file exceptions..

For the reasons set forth below, Applicant opposes such Motion.

Intervenors' Motion to extend time is premised upon a Motion they have filed with the Licensing Board.

That Motion is one "to reconsider or to reopen the record" and is based solely on a

" Petition to intervene and an affidavit filed by David Springer...."

8oossio845 c;;_

. Applicant has opposed the Petition and Affidavit of David Springer on the basis of timeliness as well as upon the basis that the allegations contained therein are totally unsupported by the facts.1/

Inasmuch as Applicant is of the view that Mr. Springer's Petition shoul'd be denied, and inasmuch as Mr. Springer's Petition is the only basis for Intervenors' Motion to Reopen, Intervenors' Motion to' Reopen should also be denied.2/

It follows that Intervenors' Motion to Extend Time, which rests solely on its Motion to Reopen, should be denied.3/

Respectfully submitted, 8

p/. Michael McGarry, III/

j DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 857-9800

~

~

Of Counsel:

Attorney for Duke Power Company William L. Porter, Esq.

Associate General Counsel

~

Duke Power Company June 18, 1980 1/

Applicant would note that the substance of Mr. Springer's Petition and Affidavit is similar to that which was previously presented to this Appeal Board.

See Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460 (1977).

2/

There is-no merit, in Applicant's view, in awaiting Licensing Board action in this regard since the matter is so deserving of dismissal.

3/

Applicant also maintains that Mr. Springer's pleadings are in essence exceptions to_the Licensing Board's alternative site Decision.

In-asmuch as Mr. Springer is not a party to the preceding he could not file exceptions and it is presumably for this reason that he pursued intervention.

Intervenors' are parties and can file exceptions and thus should not be permitted to rely upon Mr. Springer's pleadings as the basis for the instant extension of time request.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN 50-488

)

STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station,

)'

STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Response to Inter-vanors' Motion to Extend Time for Filing Exceptions" dated June 18, 1980 ing by deposit in the United States mail this 18th day of Junein t 1980.

Elizabeth S. Bowers Chairman, Atomic Safety Charlos A. Barth, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear negulatory _

Counsel for NRC Regulatory cnd Licensing Poard Staff Commission Offlae of the Executive Washington, D.C.

20555

ar.c.1 Director U.P. t7uclear Regulatory Dr. Donald P. deSylva Commission Associate Professor of Washington, D.C.

20555 Marine Science Rocenstiel School of Marine William A. Raney, Jr., Esq.

cnd Atmospheric Science Special Deputy Attorney University of Miami General Miami, Florida 33149 State of North Carolina Department of Justice Dr. Walter H. Jordan Post Office Box 629 881 West Outer Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Ock Ridge, Ten.nessee 37830 William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq.

William L. Porter, Esq.

2124 Wachovia Building Accociate General Counsel Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Duko Power Company Post Office Box 2178 Chnrlotte, North Carolina 28242 e

l

Mary'Apperson Davis Chairman, Atomic Safety and Route 4 Licensing Appeal Board Panel Box'261 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mocksville, North Carolina 27028 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Chase R. Stephens U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Station Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Alan S~. Rosenthal Dr. John H.. Buck Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555

~

Richard S. Salzman Atomic Safety and I

Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 j/

b s

. Michael McGafry, I 3

l 9

il

,.