ML20028B208
| ML20028B208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J, Thornton P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B209 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8211300169 | |
| Download: ML20028B208 (3) | |
Text
.
Uh [0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'82 NOV 29 A10:14
[ ' M 'l U F Y IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
Docket No. 50-155-OLA
' )((
~
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
Big Rock Point Nuclear
)
Power Plant
)
MOTION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ORDER INSTANTER Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") to grant it leave to file instanter the attached application for a stay of the effectiveness of the Board's October 29, 1982 initial decision concerning criticality.
In support of this motion, Licensee states as follows:
1.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.788(a) provides that within 10 davs of a decision by a Licensing Board any party may request that the Board stay the effectiveness of its decision pending appeal.
A]rhough the 10 day period has elapsed in this case, good cause exists why the Licensing Board should nonetheless entertain Licensee's application for a stay.
2.
Failure to entertain this application for a stay would result in significant prejudice to the Licensee.
As shown in the attached application, Licensee is threatened with irreparable injury unless the effectiveness of the
'F2113OI169 8215 5 ~ ~
~"l PDR ADDCK 05000155
- Licensing Board's order is stayed.
The period within which Licensee must comply with the Board's order is shorter than the time that will be required for appeal.
Therefore, Licensee must either perform an expensive study that it believes unnecessary or risk having the entire license amendment application denied.
The latter result would occur if the Appeal Board upheld the Licensing Board's decision after the time for compliance had elapsed.
3.
No conceivable prejudice could accrue to any other party from the Licensing Board's entertaining the attached application for a stay.
The grant of a stay would not delay proceedings.
Indeed, it would expedite them.
Having granted the stay, the Licensing Board could go on to determine the other issues remaining in this proceeding,ishile the Appeal Board reviews the decision on criticality.
If the Appeal Board sustains the Licensing Board's order, Licensee can per-form the criticality analysis required by the Licensing Board while litigation of the. remaining issues proceeds.
4.
Entertaining the attached application after ex-piration of the 10 day period would not frustrate the intent of the regulation.
The general purpose of regulations re-quiring that a party seeking to stay or set aside a judgment do so within a limited time is to preserve the effectiveness
.i or certainty of judgments by limiting the time during which they are subject to challenge.
This purpose, sometimes termed the " doctrine of repose," would not be frustrated if the i
e
, Licensing Board entertains the attached app 34 cation.
Because the Licensing Board's order is only one in a series of partial initial decisions, there is no need for it to be immediately effective.
It was for this reason that Licensee's counsel lost sight of the deadline provided in the regulation, which required filing of Licensee's application by November 16, 1982.
Counsel recognized the timeliness problem on that date, upon filing Licensee's appeal with the Appeal Board.
It was not possible to frame the application for a stay on that date, and other business associated with this proceeding thereafter prevented counsel from filing the application until now.
Of the five working days between November 16 and November 24, three were occupied with such business.
Counsel attended a meeting concerning the development of technical information about the pool concrete as a prelude to submitting such information to Staff as promised.
Counsel also attended a meeting with local officials for the purpose of implementing the Board's initial decision concerning emergency planning issues.
For the foregoing reasons, the Licensing Board should grant Licensee leave to file the attached application for a stay instanter.
Respectfully submitted, Qo*+k &
pr
/
u
" Joseph Gallo ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 Peter Thornton Two of the attorneys for ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Consumers Power Company Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 DATED:
November 24, 1982
_ __