ML20003E223

Notice of Appeal from ASLB 801202 Rulings Re Intervenor Motions for 90-day Extension for Deadlines.Good Cause Shown for Substantial Extension,Aslb Relief Inadequate & Ruling Restricts Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20003E223
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	03/25/1981
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC., CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20003E224	List: ML20003E223 ML20003E227
References
NUDOCS 8104020556
Download: ML20003E223 (5)

Text

, , . . . 16 f 7 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g

& O NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION necuTE" BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD .g psy- p

~

MAR 3 01981 >

In the Matter of f ~,~,,,

.}

L Office cf the Secetary D # a N & S w ce Docket Nos. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING A140 POWER COMPANY, ET AL 5

50-499 c3 N d (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 5 INTERVENOR NOTICE OF APPEAL g q On March 17, i981, at a prehearing conference, the IIcen . 8 sing board in the Instant proceeding considered Intervenor -- -

o,'- O1 F

.~

^ JgOf4 . .9' motions for a ninety day extension of all deadlines and th 7, expedited hearing date of May 4, 1981. The Board set these s

h

/ & i?'g' deadlines and the expedited hearing date by order of December 2, 1980.

The only rellef granted by the Board was a ten day extension on the identification of witnesses. The Board did move the opening date of the hearing to May 12, but this, decision resulted from Board scheduling conflicts. (Tr. at 358) While no formal order has issued containing this limited relief, the ,

Board' clearly intends to 1Imit such relief as stated. (Tr.

389-396)

(

! Intervenors appeal from the rulings of the Board in the matter of extension requests and contend that: -

(1) Intervenors showed good cause for a substantial extension.

b I (2) The Board relief is inadequate. O

?

j (3) The Board's decision adversely impacts the goal of a complete record in the initial -hearing by restricting the ability of Intervenors to _ prepare for and participate in the hearing.

8104020556

(4) The Board's decision placed too much emphasis on prior room arrangements, personal schedule cerflicts, and other matters of convenience rather than the basic reasonableness of the intervenor request and hardships imposed on intervenors.

(5) The short period of time remaining until the set date for the, Initial hearing requires an expeditious resolution of this appeal.

By letter dated February 27, 1981 (Exhibit 1), Citizens for Equitable Utiiitles notifled ali parties of a requested extension of 90 days in the hearing schedule as set out in the Board's Order of December 2, 1980. Mrs. Buchorn requested this extension based on her extensive medical difficulties (Exhibit ,

2) and her status as the only representative of her organization with the expertise and experience to serve as intervenor in 4

these proceedings. (Exhibit 3)

On March 9,1981, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. Joined with CEU in the request for a 90 day extension.

(Exhibit 4) CCANP requested this extension based on the with-drawal of legal counsel responsible for the intervention since November, 1980. Said legal counsel for reasons of 11Iness and caseload had not pursued various matters essential to the development of a complete record in these proceedings and had then withdrawn two weeks prior to the March prehearing confe-rence. CCANP had agree in November, 1980 to the schedule as set out in the December 2, 1980 Order because said attorneys would be handling the case. Had CCANP had any reason to believe

- counrel would withdraw, CCANP would not have agreed to the. May schedule as Mr. Lanny Sinkin, the only other representative of O

e

CCANP with the expertise and experience to serve as intervenor, would be unavailable to participate in the expedited hearing in May. Mr. Sinkin is a first year law student with final examinations scheduled from May 4 through May 14. Under the current schedule the Board could well take up an issue. given to Intervenors by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as alterna-tive relief to a hearing on an Crder to Show Cause or a motion to revoke under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. Mr. Sinkin would thus be in a position of entering the hearing af ter ' testimony on this issue had begun and without adequate time to prepare.

in requesting the extensions, intervenors noted the fact that the part of the early hearing dealing with the SER had ,

already been delayed by the inability of the NRC staff and the Applicant to agree over a period of two months upon a date for a site tour. This . delay will result in-the SER being issued in early April, 6-8 weeks after the mid-February date suggested in the Board Order of December 2. The portion of the hearing on the SER would then begin in late June after a suitable period for discovery based on the SER.

At the onset of the March 17 prehearing conference, all parties discussed the CEU and CCANP pending motions for exten-

~

sions. The Board outlined a schedule of available time for the months of May through - August, noting it could not meet beginning

~ May 4 as scheduled ';ut could meet the following two weeks in May and then three in June. The Board _ f urther noted that con-filcting sche >!es would prevent any sessions in this proceeding during July and August. The Board suggested continuation of the hearings in-September. (Tr. at 358)

O

Intervences attempted to accomodate the Board's schedu-ling dif ficulties by proposing the hearing open in June giving intervenors a thirty day extension. (Tr. 379, 385)

After discussion concerning the pending motions, the Board ruled that the hearing would commence on May 12. (Tr. at 389) Intervenors contend that in reaching this decision, the Board overemphasized personal scheduling conflicts (Tr. at 358, 361, 377, 379) and the dif ficulty in reserving faci lIties for the hearing. (Tr. at 367, 396-397) in so ruling, th3 Board has seriously restricted the ,

ability of Intervenors to adequately prepare for and participate .

In this proceeding and seriously inhibited Intervenors from pursuing relief expressly granted to them by the Commission.

Intervenors contend that good cause was shown for at least a thirty day extension until the first week in June and that the Board's availability for three weeks in June makes this request reasonable.

Based on the above and foregoing, Intervenors respect-fully move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to I

( grant Intervenors relief in the form of a thirty day extension on all deadlines and the hearing date.

RespectfulIy submitted for Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. and Citizens for Equitable Utilities,

( ,

~

Lahny{inkin

9 IE Certificate of Service cocGC ,,c',-- 1 1 hereby certify that the foregoing INTERVENCR NOTICE B- ~ "

CF APPEAL. has been served on the following individuals and  ; MAR 3 01981 > r entitles by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage Cffice cf the Sees!2ry Y prepaid on this 25th day of March, 1981. ,

[ 0:oc::eg & Service W s, e C)

Cir >

\

Lannypnkin Richard S. Salzman Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Dr. James C. Lamb

- Member 313 Woodhaven Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Ernest E. Hill Washington, D.C. 20555 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory .

University of Californla Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Livermore, California 94550 Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Edwin J. Reis Appeal Board Office of the Executive Legal U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C. 20555 . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5) Brian E. Berwick U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission Assistant Attorney General for .,

Washington, D.C. 20555 the State of Texas i P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station l Mr. Jack Newman .

Austin, Texas 78711 -

Lowenstein, Newman, et al 1025 Connecticut Avertue, NW Mrs. Peggy Suchern l Washington, D.C. 20036 Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Thomas B. Hudson, Jr., Esquire -

l Baker and Botts 3000 Cr *-l- P1aza Houster i2 77002 Docketing and Service Section (7)

! Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission Washington, J.C. 20555 Atomic Safet) and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, ts.C. 20555 i_ - .