ML19346A360
| ML19346A360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1981 |
| From: | Oneill J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106190212 | |
| Download: ML19346A360 (6) | |
Text
.
AMDG Unit;d States of America Nuclear Regulatory Com:rlssion BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEMSING BOARD In,the Matter of
/
/
Docket No. 50-155 CONSUMERS PC'efER CCMPANY
/
(Spent Fuel D th lon)
/
(Bi Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
/
b 4
jg o
g g
p uc8 f,
4 fi u -
MOTION IN SUPPORT OF
.x
?.:
JGi 131981 * ~0l REQUEST FOR_ CONTINUANCE gg w s. t*@*' "*** f N
q MI %
- 'n O'Neill II, Intervenor Pro Se, strongly urge this
(
g Boa o approve the continuance requested by counsel for Christa-Maria, Herbert Semme?
C6nsumers Power Company objects to this continuance on two grounds, one questioning the good cause here, and the other concerning the fuel schedule at Big Rock.
There is not sufficient reason to deny Christa-Maria, Jim Mills and JoAnne Bier counsel.
There is good caus'e for this continuance.
On August-13, 1980, Counsel for the NRC Staff Janice Moore informed Board members that the Safety Evaluation (SER) and Environmental Impact Appraisal' (EIA) were expected September 30, 1980, a notice of over two weeks served on all parties.
"Should there be any further delay in the issuance of this document, Staff Counsel will so inform the Board."
Given further delay, a similar two week notice could resonably be infered.
Indeed, on several occasions Ms. Moore assured me by telephone that I would be given such notice.
No intervenors received t
advance notice.
(1 8106190 k)R 98 i 4
- These documents were originally expected in mid-February of 1980.
As time crept on it seemed the reports would never surface.
Given the history of long delay here, it was reasonable, prudent and logical to expect noting save more delay.
A motion for continuance would be a sre formality, since no deadlines were in sight.
And so, in planning his trip to Warsaw, Mr. Semmel could hardly have guessed that the documents night arrive in the mail, unannounced, as he was about to board the plane!
The NRC is responsible for this delay.
More importantly, the advanced notice that was expected was not fortc'oming.
It is not fair to penalize Christa-Maria when the failing is that of the Staff.
There is also good cause for the continuance because without it, Christa-Maria will be denied counsel.
This is fundamental.
Christa-Maria and friends have neither the means of hiring an attorney nor the prospects of finding another volunteer lawyer.
Confer !,iotion for Withdrawal of Apnearance as Counsel filed September 5,1990 by William S. Jordan, III, Karin P. Sheldon and Ellyn R.
Weiss of Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss, which in part treats the substantial attorney's fees and costs which the intervenors were unable to bear, ard Request for l'ontinuance by Intervenors Christa-Maria, Mills and Biar, By Herbert Semmel, shich states \\that he "kncws no other attorney willing to undertake (unpaid) representation in this matter.
Counsel for Consumers suggests that "if intervenors are qualified to review these documents (95R and EIA) without assistance of counsel, they are equally qualified to file any new discovery requests and formulate new contentions in his absence..."
This is ludicrous.
These intervenors are only able to understand the technical issues because they have spent two years studying technical documents related to this case.
They have not studiad legal documents, and while Wee-Is
.?
e.
they may b3 ablo to think of n:w qu;ctions and contentions, thcy are totally unable to translate these into " legalese."
As we all know, discovery questions must be drafted artfully; such are precisely the reasons, people hire attorneys.
Indeed, none of us can imagine Mr. Gallo advising the Conaumers Power Engineering staff to draft legal documents!
Why should Christa-Maria be compelled to follow bad advice?
The second objection of Consumers power concerns delay.
Intervenors have within the last nonth received thousands of pages of documents from the NRC and Consumers Power.
The stack of Xerox pages is staggering.
(An aside:
I sometimes, in exasperation, threaten to heat our home next year with these very pages!)
It is well to note that most of these pages ar the conclusian of Consumerb Power's resconses to Christa-Maria's first and second set of interrogatories.
While objection to a continuance of about two months, Consumers seemed to have no qualms about waiting until May of 1980 to fully answer Christa-Maria's second disco,rery set, dated June 26, 1980, a delay of nearly a year.. Indeed, the withholding of so much information until discovery is nearly over might in it-self be good grdunds for an extension of time.
Unless I am mistaken, 14 days time is allowed for answering discovery questiens.
But more to the point, Consumers Power objects to the continuance because the resulting schedule might not enalbe the utility to install new racks durirg the January to March outage planned for Big Rock in 1982.
This line of reasoning does not stand up.
There is strong presumption that the Board will rule in favor of the utility.
This is a most curious position.
The company is not entitled to make this assumption, nor is it at liberty to, on the n
-4.
, basis of such an assumption claim that its rights are being abrogated.
. Note, the weight of Consumers counsel is place on this argument about the schtduled outage at Big Rock and the desirability of then installing new racks, not on an argument of unwarranted delay.
Consumers is claiming prejudice and injury because installation of new racks might be delayed.
But these are racks that it has no right to install because it holds no license to do so.
This Board
's not required to give the utility new spent fuel racks, and the company has no right to pretent that it is.
Moreover, the hearing process is not something that should automatically award a license, it should be a method of determining whether or not the proposal is prudent and safe.
Consumers counsel is here presumptious and cynically denies expectation of a fair hearing.
The above is a matter of principal that I cannot too strongly emphasire.
As a practical matter, I might here note that the licensee assumes that the hearing schedule will hereafter clip a]ong as first laid out, (see pages 2 and 3 of Consumers'.'brief.)
First, this is unrealistic, given the history of delay in this case and the Yule holidays that would probably interfer with evidentary hearings.
Secondly, th.e utility leaves unexamined the possibility of an extension of the implementation of the lessons learned from Three Mile Island modifications.
Lany implementation extensions have been granted t'o Big Rock, some of these, I believe, include the lessons learned modifications.
Thirdly, aftee step 8, the licensee is again presuming that the Board will ach in a certain way.
The Board may well judge that certain matters demand closer scrutiny, and thus different steps, or that a different time schedule is better.
x
,. For the sake of argument, how important is the utility's concern over reracking and refueling schedules?
On May 14 a two month delay in the release of the SER'and EIS seemed likely.
Surely such de' lay would have interfered with any reracking plans just as much as any two month continuance.
Should there not have been, then, an expression of this concern if it was a real, pressing consideration?
Consumcrs choul have requested the Board to urge the Staff to be more-timely.
The record shows no su'ch filings.
One is thus led to believe that tis is not an overriding concern for the utility.
That the company never objected to the long wait for the Staff documents cuts against its argument.
Finally, I would like to quote from page 2 of the " State-ment of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings" of May 21, 1981:
"The Commission wishes to emphasize though that, in expediting the hearings, the board whould ensure thatthe hearings are fair, and produce a record which leads to high quality decisions that adequately protect the public health and safety and the' environment."
Intervenors primary function in an NRC proceeding is to assist in developing a full record, as the Commission's charges recognizes.
Christa-Maria,,Jo Anne Bier and Jim Mills must have an attorney, or their long labors to develope a full record well might come to naught, and in the process be of no assistance to the Board in reaching a fair and prudent decision.
The Intervenors need legal help as the critical perigd for discovery draws to a close.
This is Good Cause.
The arguments of Consumers Power seek to penalize intervenors for the Staff's shortcomir.gs,and presume that the hearing must be conducted in a manner conveniently in keeping with an anticipated outcome.
There is no substance to these arguments.
i e
-l
r For-the above good' reasons, I move that the Atomic Safety and. Licensing Beard grant Mr. Semmel's request for continuance.
'So that this' proceeding might progress in an orderly and coordinated manner, I move that any continuance' apply to all parties.
rVery Sincerely, If chn O'Neill II Date'd: June 10,1981 Intervenor, For Himself Route 2 Br>x 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664-Copies were served on all parties on the service list, f
- 9 6
4 h
9 I
1 h
t
,c g-
,--,,----,-wg e
g
, e