ML19331A270
| ML19331A270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1974 |
| From: | Jerome Murphy US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160844 | |
| Download: ML19331A270 (1) | |
Text
.
D THis DOCUMENT CONTAI
. P00R QUAL.lTY.PAGES~
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0!! MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A5D LICEilSIf!G BOARD
.In ' the Matter of
)
G,' -Y
)
~mo CONSUMERS PO'.!ER COMPANY
)
Construction Permit
)
Hos. 81 and 82
-. Nc,/p
(!!idland Plant, Units 1
)
/ /],,,
Qf and 2)
)
u z.;j ;3
.j i Jf
, en c.
yg.p> }--l
~
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S AilSL'ER TO
,fP!
MOTION BY SAGiiiN.l GRGUP REOUESTIiiG
~., ~' R, EXTE : SIC: CF TI :E FOR FILI:!G FI::DI!!GS
. Q'
.s OF FACT ATID C0:iCLUSICriS OF LA!1
' 'fr.z---$
~..._...
On August 12, 1974, the Saginaw Group, intervenors in this proceeding, filed a motion with the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) requesting a two week time exten'sion within which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. E The Board had fixed August 12, 1974 as the date on which all parties were to simultaneously file their' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Both the AEC regulatory staff (Staff) and the licensee filed, proposed fin' dings in accord with that schedule. As its sole justification for the requested extension of time the Saginaw Group states its' counsel is " working without fees".
A request for a time extension within which to file a document in a Con:nission proceeding is subject to the provisions of 10 CFR i 2.711
]/ It should be noted that the staff received its copy of the motion on August 19, 1974.
s 5007160 @4L/
,-y
~
2-of the Commission's Rules of Practice. This section provides that an extension may be granted for good cause by the presiding officer, which in this proceeding is the presiding Board' The Saginaw Group's motion is entirely devoid of any good cause showing for the requested relief. Saginaw' Group merely alleges that it is unable to; meet the established deadline for filing proposed findings because the Com -
mission denied it attorney fees. Such an argument'does not begin to satisfy the Commission's requirement of a good cause showing for the relief requested.
s
!! hen the hearing was adjourned on July 25, 1974, all parties had notice that proposed findings were due August 12, 1974.
Saginaw Group was aware of the July 10, 1974 Ccmmission Memorandum and Order denying the payment of requested fees. Accordingly, the Saginaw Group has had sufficient time to develop alternative courses of action which may have been necessary because of the Commission's action.
Certainly, Saginaw had sufficient time to determine that it would not be able to meet the August 12, 1974 deadline for filing proposed findings and to file with the presiding Board a timely request for an extension of time based on a good cause showing.
Instead it elected to delay such action until the very day on which their proposed findings were to be filed Such action can only be l
interpreted as a delaying tactic, particularly since it has not pre-sented to this Board any basis for finding good cause to extend the time.
8
Furthermore, it should be noted that Saginaw's counsel has participated in several Commission licensing proceedings and is well aware of the Commission's R'uies of Practich and theii interpretations by the L'icensing Boards and Appeal Board.
He is certainly familiar with the Appeal Board Order in the Waterford proceeding, E n which he i
. represented an intervenor, wherein the Appeal Board criticised the intervenor for filing a motion for a time extension on the very day 'a brief was due.
In that Order the Appeal Board stated that such motions for extensions of time must be in the hands of the Appeal
' Board no later than the day before the substantive document is due.
The Appeal Board went on to state that:
"Hereafter, we will view the failure to follow this practice in connection with any motion for an extension of time as providiiig~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 must contain, in addition to the reasons relied upon to justify the extension, a showing of good cause for the failure to transmit the motion in a timely fashion." y
\\
l l
In the staff's view the rule laid down by the Appeal Board in the l
Waterford proceeding is appropriate for application in this l
proceeding.
l
(
y In the Matter of Louisiana Power & Light Comnany.(Materford l
Steam Electric Station, Unit '3) Order. April 20, 1973 (ALA3-117) RAI-73-4, p. 261.
3/ Id.
O
-o 4
For the reasons stated:above, the Saginaw Group's motion. for. an extension of time within which to file proposed fin, dings of. fact and conclusions of law should be denied.
Respectfully subnitted,-
--/
J..... o ( _ 7-.~,.y.
i t
James-P. Murray, Jr.
,., Counsel for AEC. Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda,~ 'aryland -
this PLdth day of August, 1974.
e e
e 9
4 e
f:
4 m
g a
e e
4 g
e a
to g.
^
~.
.r UtlITED STATES OF' AMERICA ATOMIC E!!ERGY C0:011SSIO:t BEFORE THE ATO: TIC SAFETY AfiD LICEi1SIliG BOARD In the Matter of.
)
f.
Construction Permit C0!!SUMERS P0'.lER COM?NiY flos. 81 and 82 (MidlandPlant, Units 1 and2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _
I hereby certify that cocies of "AEC Regulatory Staff's Answer to lbtion by Saginaw Group Recuesting Extensicn of Time for Filing Findings of Fact cr.d Cenclusions of Lcw", dated Augus: Ec, 1974 in the captioned mtter have been served on the following by hcnd delivery or by deposit in the United States nail, first class or air mail, this 20 th day of August, 1974:
liichael Glaser, Esq., Chairman Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 - 17th St.,::.U.
One First i;ational Plaza Washington, 0.0.
20036 Chicago, Illinois 60670 Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Laurence M. Scoville, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons &
Board Panel Prdwitt U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
'1600 First Federal Building Washington, D.C.
20545 1001 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' Atomic Safety and Licensing Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Board Panel Jenner and Block U.S. Atomic Energy Commission One IBM Plaza Washington, D.C.
20545 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Atomic Safety and Licensing I
Docketing and Service Section
. Appeal Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Comission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 l
Washington, D. C.
20545 l
John G. Gleeson, Esq.
l The Dow Chemical Co.
.2030 Dow Center Midland, Michigan 48640 g
,// y
^
x.-
- 'Jamelf P. ifurray, Jr.
/
Couns'cl for AEC Rcgulatory Staff
~
,_