ML19329D065

Motion for Extension of Time to File Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law to 760830.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19329D065
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	08/06/1976
From:	Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002240062
Download: ML19329D065 (4)

Text

. August 6, 1976 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) g THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No.(50-34 6A/

COMPANY

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY,'ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-441A Units 1 and 2) )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

1. Pursuant to Section 2.711 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Applicants hereby move that the time within which to file Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be extended from August 16, 1976 to and including August 30, 1976. The reason for this request is that Applicants are now firmly convinced that they simply cannot complete their post-hearing submission within the time allotted.

2. The undersigned counsel represent to this Li-censing Board that, but ror the single hearing day on July 20, 1976, they have been occupied full time, including weekends, on the average of 12-14 hours a day, reviewing the voluminous 8 0 02 240 og3z p,

a -

hearing record compiled over a period of seven months, and analyzing the evidence in an effort to set forth in a mean-ingful fashion, a full discussion of Applicants' position on the various matters'in controversy.-1/ In addition, other counsel of record, appearing on behalf of each Applicant individually, have been similarly engaged in the process of preparing fact memoranda to be incorporated into the final document.

3. It is now clear that th.re is no possibility for Applicants to finish the monumental task before them by August 16, 1976. Not only do the obvious time delays associ-ated with the essential step of reviewing drafts (being cir-culated in an expedited manner so as not to cause mailing delays) make this apparent; it also is obvious from the ex-perience thus far in working diligently to incorporate into the joint filing an abbreviated version of the substance of each Applicant's fact memorandum (which run on the average 100 pages each).

4. Unlike the challenging parties in this pro- l l

ceeding, Applicants cannot be content with developing but a single case; they must treat the evidence presented in all three of the cases put on by the adversary parties. While 1/ An additional lawyer with the firm has also been working full-time on this endeavor; two other summer law clerks have provided additional assistance on a part-time basis.

the effort is being made to avoid duplication of argument where those cases overlap, this still leaves a number of allegations which are not interrelated. Moreover, in view of thic Board's decision to receive all evidence in this proceeding as coming in against each Applicant individually, there frequently are independent responses to be made to certain of the charges.

5. Accordingly, the requested two-week extension of time is absolutely necessary to finish the task at hand.

Applicante can assure this Board that there has been no time wasted; nor will there be. We would also observe that the granting of this motion will not possibly prejudice any of the other parties in view of the simultaneous filing schedule.

Indeed, the only prejudice likely to result from the delay is that impact which a two-week extension could have on the plant schedules for these units. That, of course, is a prejudice which will be felt most dramatically by the Applicants.

We obviously have weighed that consideration in the balance., and have concluded that, notwithstanding this possible consequence, the present request for two more weeks is of overriding importance.

WHEREFORE, Applicants ask that this Board grant their motion to extend the time for filing Applicants' Pro-posed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to and including

o August 30, 1976. We anticipate that the other parties will be accorded a similar extension in accordance with the Board's decision to require simultaneous filings.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

\ k ),, _ w.

By: l v\

i \ m_ _ n__

Wm. Bradford Reynolds \

By:

Robert E. Zahler j

i Counsel for Applicants Dated: August 6, 1976.

.- , , - . - - - . _ - - - .