ML20032A130
| ML20032A130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Rawson R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110280341 | |
| Download: ML20032A130 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STAES OF A4.RICA NUCIEAR REGUIAlmY C0ttflSSION BEFORE TIE AlmIC SAFELY AND LICENSING APPFAL In\\RD_
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and TENNESSEE VALEY AU11KRITY
)
50-2 %
)
(License amendment to pemit (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
onsite storage of low level Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3)
)
radioactive waste)
{TU
,( k Ts' 's f [ nf. M D ?
i-OCT 2 7198I" 3
$v.s.g"M""'
9 NRC STAFF REYR IN OPPOSITION TO
/ [qff(,
PETITIONERS' MUTION FOR C0tEINUANCE i
Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff 4
October 26, 1981 t
8110280341 g IC TC17ATED ORIGIITAL' Certified Ey_ _
1
?
STAFF 10/26/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEFORE THE ATOHIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD-In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-259 50-260 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
50-296
)
(License amendment to permit (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
onsite storage of low level Unit Hos.1, 2 and 3)
)
radioactive waste)
NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE I.
INTRODUCTION On October 2,1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order denying all petitions te intervene in this proceeding.
On October 19, 1981, petitioners by their attorney filed a Notice of Appeal, a Motion for Continuance and an Affi-davit. These papers were received by the Staff on October 22, 1981.
No brief accompanied these papers.
Instead, petitioners moved for an extension of three weeks time within which to complete their brief. As grounds for this request, petitioners stated merely that their attorney "has been working to prepare a brief but has not yet completed it.
For the reasons discussed below, the Staff opposes petitioners' motion.
II.
DISCUSSION The requirements of 10 CFR 92.714a are simple and clear.
An appeal of an order ruling on petitions to intervene must be filed within ten days of service of the order. The appeal "shall be asserted by the filing of a notice of appeal and accompanying supporting brief." 10 CFR
._~-.
92.714a(a). The time alotted may be extended "for good cause."
In its " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedirg,"
published in the Federal Register on May 27,1981.M the Cocnission indicated the seriousness with which it views unnecessary delays in the licensing process. Among the items of specific guidance listed by the Conuission were two which are relevant here:
- 1) Boards were advised to satisfy themselves that the " good cause" standard has actually been met before granting an extension of time; and 2) requests for extensions of time "shoulr1 be received by the Board well before the time specified expires."U Petitioners' motion fails to satisfy either of these criteria.
Petitioners' statement that their attorney "needs an additional three (3) weeks in shich to finish his research and preparation" is not adequate without more to establish good cause.
In particular, peti-tioners foil to explain why they should require an extension that is more than twice as long as the time originally provided by regulation.
Further, petitioners' motion for an extension was not filed "well before the time specified expires" as the Commission prefers.
Rather, it was mailed on the last possible day without any previous attempt to obtain a stipulatinn of the parties or even to notify the parties.
In the absence of y
y See also 10 CFR Part 2, App. A at IX.(d)(3), in which it is stated that " Absent a showinq af extraordinary and unanticipated circum-stances, motions for ' xeptions [sicJ of time must be received by e
the Appeal Board at least I day ptior to the date upon which the document in question is than due for filing."
)d cause and in light of petitioners' unwarranted delay, their request for an extension should be denied.
In the event thdt the Appeal Boara grants petitioners' motion for an extension, the Staff submits that the Staff should be afforded a similar extension of the time within which to reply to petiticnars' brief. Fairness requires that an equal amount of time be provided for responding to petitioners' argunents as petitioners have had to prepare them.
III. CONCLUSION Because petitioners' notion fails to meet the standards established by the regulations and the Commission's recent policy statement, the Staff opposes petitioners' Motion for Continuance.
If the extension sought is to be granted, however, the Staff requests that it be permitted an equal amount of time after receipt of petitioners' brief for filing of its reply.
Respectfully submitted, Im Richard 4. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Eswesda, liaryland this 26th day of October,1981
.v t
.m
o e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0aMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEMSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, (License amendment to permit onsite Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3) storage of low level radioactive waste)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION 10 PETITIONERS' KIFION FOR CONIUCANCE" 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 Cor. mission's internal mail system, this 26th day of Octrioer, 1981:
- John H. Frye III, Chairman H. S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 400 Commerce Avenue Washington, DC 20555 3 11B 33C Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson, Administrative Judge Mr. H. N. Culver Oak Ridge National Laboratory 249 HBD P. O. Box X, Building 3500 400 Commerce Avenue Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dr. Quentin J. Stober, Administrative Judge Mr. Herbert Abercrombie Fisheries Research Institute Tennessee Valley Authority University of Washington P. O. Box 2000 Seattle, Washington 98195 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Mr. Ron Rogers Mr. Charles R. Christopher Tennessee Valley Authority Chairman, Limestone County Commission 400 Chestnut Street. Tower II P. O. Box 188 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Athens, Alabama 35611
?
Y Mr. Robert F. Sullivan U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 1863 Decatur, Alabama 35602
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Leroy J. Ellis, III, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Attorney for Intervenors
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal i shv le Tne ee 37219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert B. Pyle
- Secreta ry Suite 9, Oakwood Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4783 Highway 58 North ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service P. O. Box 16160 Branch Chattanooga, TN 37416 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ira L. Myers, M.D.
State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Mr. John F. Cox IIicha~d J. R6wson Tennessee Valley Authority Counsel for NRC Staff W9-D 207C 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Director, Office of Urban & Federal Affairs 108 Parkway Towers 404 James Robertson Way Nashville, Tennessee 37219
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chainnan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission Washington, DC 20555 u
y,
,