ML19330B458
| ML19330B458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1980 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8008040047 | |
| Download: ML19330B458 (5) | |
Text
._
p.
CCCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION bl s#-
ustmo da JUL 311980>
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OfficacittsW i
~
q M W /?
U In the Matter of
)
'g f5
)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC &
)
Docket No. 50-395A GAS COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
)
Station)
)
ANSWER OF SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY CENTRAL FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (" Central") has moved for an additional twenty days, plus the ten days granted by the Secretary of the Commission, within which to file the comments requested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" Commission") in its Memorandum and Order of June 30, 1980.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company ("SCE&G") opposes the allowance of an additional twenty days.--*/
In our view, the forty days permitted by the Commission's Memorandum and Order as weli as the extension already granted is sufficient time to enable the parties to respond to the Com-mission's request.
The reasons given by Central in support of its motion are entirely without merit.
First, the fact that its l
counsel is also the attorney for a plaintiff in an unrelated l
federal District Court proceeding to which Central is not a party 1
is no basis for an extension.
While the practice of seeking
- / Neither SCE&G nor any other party opposed the request for the previous ten-day extension.
D5o3 3
I 8008040 o yp
, discovery in one action so that the documents there obtained can be used in another proceeding is perhaps too common, it can not be a proper basis for delay and certainly should not be endorsed or. encouraged by the Commission.
To hold otherwise would be to encourage proliferation of litigation for the sake of seeking discovery to obtain delay.
By the same token, it is mere speculation by Central that it I
may have obtained relevant documents by way of discovery in a proceeding to which it is not even a party.
In any event, as the Commission has recognized in authorizing its Staff to make negative determinations under Section 105c, the search for "significant changes" must end sometime.
Considering that Central's petition j
was filed on December 6, 1978 and that it filed its last pleading d
by letter dated March 21, 1980, it is clear that Central has had ample time to furnish the Commission with information relevant to the "significant changes" determination.
4 As a second reason for an extension, Central's counsel argues, in effect, that his firm has more work than it can presently handle.
Obviously, neither the Commission nor SCE&G has any control over the number of actions involving Central's counsel or the size of the staff deemed necessary to handle its cases.
Nothing alleged justifies further delay, particularly in view of the numerous, repetitiv<., pieadings already filed by Central.
Rather, the' Commission should act "to avoid unnecessary future i
delays in bringing the process to an end."
Public Service Company 2
k e - -, -
., of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-14, 7 NRC 952, 957 (1978).
As the Supreme' Court has noted: "Administra-tive consideration of evidence always creates a gap between the time a record is closed and the time the administrative decision is promulgated."
If a final decision could be indefinitely delayed on the basis of new evidence, "there would be little hope that the administrative process could ever be consummated Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 434 (1978),
citing Bowman Transportation v. Arkansas-Best Freight System,
'419 U.S.
281, 295 (1974).
It is respectfully submitted that the Commission should adhere to its schedule as to the responses of the parties.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & MOORE
~). lu I Tct,-
Troy'B.. Conner, Jr.
Counsel'for South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company July 30, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.v21ISSION In the Matter of
)
)
South Carolina Electric &
)
Docket No. 50-395A Gas Ccmpany, et al.
)
)
(Virgil C.
Scnmer Nuclear
)
Station)
)
-_RLrCe er C _en,m_ r - r.s_ _e Oe m
- 1. 2 u I hereby certify that copies of " Answer of South Carolina Electric & Gas in Opposition to Motion by Central for Extension of Time," dated July 30, 1980, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 30th day of July, 1980:
Wallace E.
3 rand, Esq.
Robert A.
Jablon, Esc.
Ecward 2.
dall, Esq.
Spie9el & McDiarmid ~
-=nd & Eal' 3,is3 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Street, N.W.
s Washington, v.C.
,0037 Suite 200 Washingten, D.C.
20005 Wallace S. Murp.ny, ssq.
C. Pinckney Roberts, Esq.
General Counsel Dial, Jennings, Windham, South Carolina Public Service Thomas & Roberts Authority P.
O. Box 1792 223 North Live Cak Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Moncks Corner, S.C.
29461 Mr.
P.
T. Allen George E.
Fischer, Esq.
Executive Vice President and Vice Presiden and General Manager General Counsel Central Electric Pcwer South Carolina Electric and Cooperative Inc.
Gas C0me.any r
P. O. Box 1455 P. O.
Scx 764 Colu=hia, South Carolina 29202 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Hugh Morrison, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Cahill, Gordon & Reindel Office of the Secretary Suite 900 U.S.
Nuclear Regula:Ory Commissic 1819 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 Fred D.
Chanania, Esr.-
Dcnald A.
Kaplan, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Chief, Energy Section Office of the Executive Antitrust Divis;cn Lecal Director Department of Justice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washing cn, D.C.
20044
~
Cccmission Washington, D.C.
20555
s 2-Janet Urban,.Esq.
Nancy Luque, Esq.'
Department'of Justice P.O.
Box 14141 Washington, D.C.
20044 h*
v Robert M.
Rader 4
l k
i 1
1 l
1 d
h 1
... ~ - -
--e-..
n.,
n~-
.m.
.n..
~ -,,.