ML19352A878
| ML19352A878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000376 |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106020268 | |
| Download: ML19352A878 (7) | |
Text
1 May 29, 1981 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER
)
Docket No. 50-376 AUTHORITY
)
~
)
(North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1))
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EXCEPTIONS I.
INTRODUCTION On May 12, 1981, Gonzalo Fernos and Citizens for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (CCNR) (Intervenors) filed a document entitled " Notice of Appeal and Request For an Extension of Time to File Brief Thereof" (Notice).
In the Notice the Intervenors request that this Board " hold in abeyance the thirty (30) day period to file a Brief in support of the foregoing exceptions until thirty (30) days after such time that the Department of Justice" completes and makes available to the Intervenors its findings concerning " Applicant's alleged corrupt j
operations." The Staff opposes this request.
II.
DISCUSSION
}
Titis 'is the second time the Intervenors are requesting this Board to extend the time period established by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762 for appealing an initial decision. This section provides that exceptions be filed
.1 within 10 days of service of the initial decision and that a supporting brief be filed thirty days thereafter.
Application of the provisions of po6620 M K
i-i,i this regulation to the facts in this case would mean that the Interenors' exceptions to the Licensing Board's February 18, 1981 Memorandum and Order should have been filed by March 5 and the supporting brief should have been filed by April 6.M By a document I
filed on April 6,1981, with the Appeal Board the Intervenors requested and were granted an extension of time until May 15, 1981 to file an appeal under 10 C.F.R. s 2.762.E The Intervenors by the instant motion once again seek to extend the time provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.762.
The only reason that the Intervenors assert as justification for the instant request that was not asserted when they made their April 6 request is the asserted Department of Justice investigation of " Applicant's alleged corrupt operations."3] The Staff believes y
The Intervenors' March 3 Petition for Reconsideration of the Licensing Board's Order did not stay Intervenors' obligation under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.762 to notice an appeal by filing exceptions within 10 days of the decision. See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-235, 8 AEC 645 '1974); and Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear P. ant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-568, 10 NRC 554 (1979).
y The Appeal Board granted the request on April 10, 1981.
3]
T M other two bases for the instant request are:
1.
Possible affidavits of landowners who live in the vicinity of the proposed facility.
}
2.
The difficulty ii, obtaining NRC issuances.
These bases were asserted in the April 6 request for an extension.
The validity of these bases is questionable in light of the fact that the Intervenors have had more than 8 months to obtain the referenced affidavits (Intervenors' petition to dismiss the Applicant's application with prejudice was served on September 18, 1980) and the fact that Intervenors have had more than six years to obtain NRC issuances in this case.
(The application was noticed in the Federal Register on February 14, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 6835).
b
-.n.
i
,1
% that such investigation does not support any further delay in this proceeding.
The alleged investigation of corrupt operations and any finding that might result from such investigation are not relevant to the issue ruled upon by the Licensing Board on February 18, 1981. The narrow issue ruled upon by the Licensing Board was whether it is in the public's interest to allow the Applicant to withdraw its application for aconstructionpermitwithoutprejudice.O While the issue of alleged corrupt operations of the Applicant could possibly be relevant in a future proceeding for a construction permit should this Applicant refile its application, it is not relevant to how the public interest may be hurt by allowing withdrawal of the application without prejudice.
Moreover, Intervenors' assertion of the issue of Applicant's possible currupt operations at this stage in the proceeding is an 6 tempt to violate the well established rule that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.M y
Order of, February 18,1931, at 4.
y Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 18 and 2B), ALAB-463, 7 HRC 341, 348 (1978); Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 27-28 n. 36 (1978).
4
~ -
= - - -.
M y...
'II.
CONCLUSION For these reasons the Intervenors' request for an extension of time should be' denied.
4 Respegf lly submitted,
- ,l j-Q'Henrg&
(,
sx McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff t
4 l
4 i.
t i
N t
i i
Dated at Bethesda, liaryland, this 29th day of May, 1981.
(
5 5
4 L
i i
l f
l i
.--__...._,,-.--.-.,,__._,_-,.......s._
UNIT'iD-STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL-BOARD In the Matter of PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER Docket No. 50-376 AU THORITY
('iorth Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1)).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO P<'IRVEN0RS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN SUPPOR' 0F EXCEPTIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 29th day of May,1981:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chainnan*
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Dr, John H._ Buck, Member
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Att nic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Appeal Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission Washington, DC 20555 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newnan, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Esq. Jose F. Irizarry Gonzalez General Counsel Sheldon J. Uolfe, Esq., Chairnan*
Puerto Rico Electric Powar Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G.P.O. Box 4267 e
Washington, DC 20555 San Juan, PR 00936 s
~6
. e Alberto Bruno Vega,-Assistant Eng. Francisco Jimenez Executive Director, Planning' Box 1317 and Engineering Mayaguez, PR 00708 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Mr. Gonzalo Fernos, Chairman G.P.O. Box 4267 Citizens for the Conservation of San Juan, PR -00936 Natural Resources, Inc.
503_Barbe Street Mr. Mario Roche Velazquez Santurce, PR 00912 Executive Director, Mision Industrial, Inc.
Esq. German A. Gonzalez Mision Industrial De Puerto Rico Attorney for Mision G.P.O. Box 20434 Industrial, Inc.
Rio Piedras, PR 00925 Mision Industrial De Puerto Rico G.P.O. Box 20434 Atomic Safety and Licensing Rio Piedras, PR 00925 Coard Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -Commission Docketing and Service Section*
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Calaission Atoaic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appea; Board
- U.S. Nucl ar Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 f--
,t L
w her.rh'b.McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff
.