ML19344A109
| ML19344A109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1977 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310613 | |
| Download: ML19344A109 (4) | |
Text
'tidJI44
%3 M_
&Wf,
/
Ui!ITED STATES 0F AttERICA-IlVCLEAR REGULATORY COMitISS10ft BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AilD LICEllSIflG BOARD In the Matter of
)
sh C0flSUMERS POWER'COMPA!!Y Docket !!os. 50-329 S
50-330
%,,,tc 7 g77 7 O (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) jud IIRC STAFF A!!SWER TO-I!!TERVEll0RS' LETTER I.
l 110TI0?! 0F JULY 11,1977 y
u, Dj Introdugtion By a letter dated July 11, 1977 to the itembers of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board), Counsel for Intervenors Other Than Dow (Inter-venors) sought the Board's permission to file a pleading uncalled for by the Commission's Rules of Practice. Accompanying the July 11 letter is
, an " Attachment to Letter of July 11, 197/" (Attachment) which ostensibly corrects asserted errors contained in the "lluclear Regulatory Commission-l
.l Staff's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" (Staff's Proposed Findings)
. filed,in this proceeding on July 1, 1977.
Discussion i
i i
The Staff construes.Intervenors' July 11-letter as a motion to the Board seeking leave-to file a reply to the Staff's Proposed Findings. The Rules of Practice do not provide 'for 'such a reply by Interverars.
See 10 C.F.R.
- 52.754(b)(3).. Additionally, this Doard has specifically indicated that 800731.0 h 6 5 f
v-9 ~ -
the-normal. provisions of 10 C.F.R. f2.7.54 would apply to the proposed findings'and'. conclusions which were to be filed by the parties on the
- suspension question. -(Tr. 6165).
Intervenors have'not shown why this Board should deviate from'the. provisions-of'the rule. The Administrative Procedure' Act entitles a party to an'~
agency adjudication to submit proposed findings and conclusions.
See 5 U.S.C. SS57(c). The Commission's Rules of Practi'e specifically in-corporate this provision in 10 C.F.R. 52.754. All parties to the agency adjudication are entitled to submit proposed findings and conclusions.
In addition, the party with the burden of proof, in this case Consumers Power Company (Licensee), is entitled to a reply.
Provision for other responses is absent from the rule and for sound reason. At some point in the hearing
. process, argument must come to an end and the decision-maker must decide.
It is the Board which will make the final determination on the suspension
- issue. -The Board now has before it the proposed findings and conclusions of all the. parties.to this proceeding and also the reply of the Licensee which is specifica1'y provided for under the rule. The Board must now
. sift these documents and determine which findings are properly supported in thefrecord.and which conclusions of law are-appropriate.
Intervenors
- offer no reason to support their further filing beyond the' fact.that they
. vigorously. disagree with some of'the Staff's proposed findings and conclusions.
f:
m 9g
_a
' 3-
- Such disagreement'is scarcely an exceptional circumstance.
If indeed
. Staff's findings are inaccurate as Intervenors claim, the Board has before itithe' record which will enable it' to ju'dge the; Staff's findings and Intervenors' findings.
Likewise,.should' Staff's conclusions of law'be ill-founded, the Board again has before it the briefs of all parties.
l Intervenors do not suggest that they offer the Board any new information or arguments.
in fact, the proposed filing simply repeats the previous argurr.ents in shriller ~and more exaggerated rhetoric.
P This proceeding must be' expedited, and the Appeal Board has so instructed
_See Consumers-Power Comoany (Midland Plant, Units-1 and 2),
this Board.
ALAB-395, S CI-77/
(April 29, 1977).
(Slip. Op., p. 27). A stream of j
extraneous pleadings'can only impede timely r'esolution of the significant I'
questions beforelthis Board.
This Board trust rule on the suspension question and must rule expeditiously.
Should the Board rule contrary to the views of Intervenors, they have'a remedy available. An appeal from the Board's decision can-be taken pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.762 and argument
~
- can be presented to the Appeal Board on factual issues and legal questions.-
-which_they dispute.
For-the above reasons, the Staff'strongly objects-to
~
Intervenors' motien and urges.that it be denied.
6 e
s
+
s
N
^
_4 Furtherinore, the Staff must take note of the July 11,'1977 letter which constitutes.Intervenors' motion.
In his letter, Intervenors' Counsel 4
.centinues.his tactic of scattering abou't' reckless and unsupported allegations in' abuse of his opponents. The Board should consider that letter when it. rules upon' the Staff's pending motion for censure 'of Intervenors' Counsel..
+
Conclusion The Staff objects to Intervenors' motion' seeking permission from>this Board to file a reply to Staff's Proposed Findings and urges that it be denied.
Respectfully submitted, q
w(.
v 2C I
Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
'~
i this 25th day of July.1977 -
l i
1
. \\
-l 1
4
(
geh-u.ee,.
y e
- -[
t4
+
a.
y v